> On Jan. 27, 2015, 8:04 p.m., Christopher Tubbs wrote: > > BUILD.md, lines 35-71 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/diff/5/?file=836993#file836993line35> > > > > I'm not sure this section is even necessary here. It seems more > > appropriate to developer documentation on the website.
Its useful information, so it needs to go somewhere. Build instructions for 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 are very different. Its nice when dealing with those older versions to be able to look at their build instructions in the README. I am not sure if version specific build instructions would be properly maintained on the website. IMO keeping these instructions versioned with source is perferable to putting them on the website. If we do keep these instructions in source, I think BUILD.md is an ok place. > On Jan. 27, 2015, 8:04 p.m., Christopher Tubbs wrote: > > INSTALL.md, lines 152-223 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/diff/5/?file=836994#file836994line152> > > > > I would like to see upgrade hints/tips/suggestions/procedures to be > > documented in the release notes on the website. > > > > Perhaps they are appropriate here also, but I feel like those are going > > to be very version-specific, and these README files aren't going to get a > > lot of attention over time, and this information is going to get stale > > and/or lengthy and confusing. The instructions will need to be updated for 1.7, could create a follow on issue about 1.7 upgrade instructions that includes this. I suppose one option is to not carry these instructions forward for now, and refer to them in the old README when the 1.7 upgrade instructions are written. > these README files aren't going to get a lot of attention over time Well I hope this reorganization of the content will encourage maintenance (or no longer discourage maintenance, as I feel the previous state of things did). I do not think docs on the website have a better chance of being maintained vs docs in src. > On Jan. 27, 2015, 8:04 p.m., Christopher Tubbs wrote: > > TESTING.md, lines 20-53 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/diff/5/?file=836999#file836999line20> > > > > This whole section feels like a maven tutorial. It might be sufficient > > to mention that unit tests are executed by the maven-surefire-plugin, and > > integration tests are executed by the maven-failsafe-plugin, and a link to > > the "Introduction to the Maven Build Lifecycle" site, and each of those > > plugins for more information. > > > > Some of the other non-maven content, like the minimal requirements, and > > the run-length seem appropriate and relevant, but there's a lot of detail > > here about how standard maven plugins are working, and there are better > > resources for that information than our particular execution of them. oh no more comments about TESTING.md. All I did in this patch was rename it from TESTING to TESTING.md :) However I am ok with reviewing and improving it here, its just that all of the comments about it were completely unexpected. I don't feel like the following long sentence is equivalent to a maven tutorial. I can work the links in, but I see no harm in leaving it. Integration tests can be run by invoking `mvn integration-test` at the top of the Apache Accumulo source tree; however, like `mvn package` being recommended for unit tests, `mvn verify` is often the recommended avenue to run the integration tests. Do you want to just remove the following? Take note that when invoking the `integration-test` lifecycle phase, other functions will also be enabled which include static analysis (findbugs) and software license checks (release analysis tool -- RAT). > On Jan. 27, 2015, 8:04 p.m., Christopher Tubbs wrote: > > TESTING.md, lines 30-32 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/diff/5/?file=836999#file836999line30> > > > > `mvn test` doesn't even work in our build, IIRC, due to the > > multi-module non-jar dependency for the native-maps. It's probably > > sufficient to simply suggest `mvn package`, and note that it executes the > > maven build lifecycle through unit testing phase. Next patch will have an update related to this. However I would like you to review them. Will leave issue open for now as a reminder. Can close this after you look at changes. Open another issue against new patch if you see more improvements. - kturner ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/#review69865 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 27, 2015, 5:22 p.m., kturner wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 27, 2015, 5:22 p.m.) > > > Review request for accumulo. > > > Bugs: ACCUMULO-1515 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1515 > > > Repository: accumulo > > > Description > ------- > > Reorganized information in README and converted to markdown. > > At this point I like the INSTALL.md document, but do not really like the > content of the README.md ATM. Putting this up for review to get suggestions. > > See how the markdown looks on GH : > https://github.com/keith-turner/accumulo/tree/ACCUMULO-1515 > > > Diffs > ----- > > BUILD.md PRE-CREATION > INSTALL.md PRE-CREATION > NOTICE af212c2 > README 4ebb078 > README.md PRE-CREATION > TESTING cf2afba > TESTING.md PRE-CREATION > assemble/src/main/assemblies/component.xml 3f18da3 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30236/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > kturner > >
