How about we change the slower verification profile from being opt-in to being opt-out? Instead of casual contributors having to know about the release profile, have the default verification verify everything needed and regular developers that want just to install without all the verifications will specify something like "-Dquick". This way a casual contributor does not need any prior knowledge to verify their branch while we can realistically expect an experienced developer to know the opt-out argument (Same as they know the opt-in one today).
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:29 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > Agree! > > Here I'm just responding to clarify and reiterate, since the threading > might appear as though I am the "you" in "the extra minutes you want to add > here will cost me an hour daily" and "you can see where I stand and why" > but I don't hold that opinion of that "you". I have said many of the same > things as Dan previously (and I'm the one who separated slow stuff back in > the day). > > So is there a path to improve it further? > > Kenn > > On Feb 10, 2017 9:28 AM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: > > I'm with Dan on this. The iteration time should be cut down as low as > possible and we have Jenkins to ensure that tests pass. > > As a side note, there are IntelliJ plugins for Checkstyle and Findbugs and > my personal setup highlights Checkstyle violations as errors in the code so > I can immediately see them and fix them. > > > I'll chat you up about this! I have both plugins but have not found a > satisfactory way of surfacing the things to fix with low latency or > immediately. > > Kenn > > > On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 at 17:45 Dan Halperin <dhalp...@google.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Feb 10, 2017 07:36, "Dan Halperin" <dhalp...@google.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > > Before we added checkstyle it was under a minute. Now it's over five? > > > That's awful IMO > > > > > > > > > Checkstyle didn't cause all that, did it? > > > > > > > The "5 minutes" was going with Aviem's numbers after this change. But > yes, > > Checkstyle alone substantially (>+50%) the time from what it was > previously > > to adding it back to the default build. > > > > Noting that findbugs takes quite a lot more time. Javadoc and jar are the > > > other two slow ones. > > > > > > RAT is fast. But it has very poor error messages, so we wouldn't want a > > new > > > contributor trying to figure out what is going on without our help. > > > > > > > There is a larger philosophical issue here: is there a point of Jenkins > > precommit testing? Why not just make `mvn install` run everything that > > Jenkins does? For that matter, why don't committers just push directly to > > master? Wouldn't that make everyone's life easier? > > > > I'd argue that's not true. > > > > 1. Developer productivity -- Jenkins should run many more checks than > > developers do. Especially time-, resource-, or setup- intensive tasks. > > 2. Automated enforcement -- Jenkins is better at running the right > commands > > than we are. > > 3. Lower the barrier to entry -- individual developers need not have a > > running Spark/Flink/Apex/Dataflow setup in order to contribute code. > > 4. Focus on the user -- someone checking out the code and using it for > the > > first time does not care whether the code style checks or has the right > > licenses -- that should have been enforced by the Beam team before > > committing. > > > > We should be *very* choosy about what we enforce on every developer every > > time they go to compile. I probably compile Beam 50x-100x a day. > Literally, > >. > > > > I've listed the fraction of commits I think will break one of the > following > > if that property is not tested: > > > > * compiling (100%) > > * tests (100%) > > * checkstyle (90%) > > * javadoc (30%) > > * findbugs (5%) > > * rat (1%) > > > > So . I'm sorry that 1/20 PRs has Apache > > RAT catch a licensing issue or Findbugs catch a threading issue -- you > can > > always get a larger set of the precommit checks using -Prelease, though > of > > course the integration tests and runnableonservice tests may catch more > > issues still. But I want my developer minutes back for the 95%+ of the > > rest. > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 07:14 Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Opened JIRA ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1457 > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 4:54 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yeah. Agree. Time extend is not huge and it's worth to add it in > > verify > > > > > phase. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 2017, 10:13, at 10:13, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >This goes back to the original discussion in this thread - reduce > > the > > > > > >amount of things pull requesters should know and keep the maven > > > command > > > > > >in > > > > > >the PR checklist as: 'mvn clean verify'. > > > > > > > > > > > >So if rat and findbugs do not take that long to run I think they > > > should > > > > > >be > > > > > >run by 'mvn clean verify' > > > > > > > > > > > >I ran a quick test on my laptop to see how much time they add to > the > > > > > >build > > > > > >(of the entire project): > > > > > > > > > > > >'mvn clean install -DskipTests' => Total time: 03:51 min > > > > > >'mvn clean install apache-rat:check findbugs:check -DskipTests' > => > > > > > >Total > > > > > >time: 05:29 min (Added 01:38 min) > > > > > >'mvn clean install' => Total time: 09:37 min > > > > > >'mvn clean install apache-rat:check findbugs:check' => Total time: > > > > > >11:13 > > > > > >min (Added 01:36 min) > > > > > > > > > > > >Are these times reasonable enough to add rat and findbugs to the > > > > > >default > > > > > >build? > > > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:55 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > j...@nanthrax.net > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We discussed about that at the beginning of the project. We > agreed > > > to > > > > > >> execute rat and findbugs in a specific profile to reduce the > build > > > > > >time for > > > > > >> dev. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> That's why I do mvn clean install -Prelease before submitting a > PR > > > > > >and > > > > > >> just clean install when I'm developing. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> No problem to change that. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Regards > > > > > >> JB > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Feb 10, 2017, 07:51, at 07:51, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > >> >Can we consider adding rat-plugin and findbugs to the default > > > verify > > > > > >> >phase? > > > > > >> >Currently they only run when the `release` profile is enabled. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM Aljoscha Krettek > > > > > ><aljos...@apache.org> > > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> +1 to what Dan said > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 at 21:40 Kenneth Knowles > > > > > ><k...@google.com.invalid> > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > +1 > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > On Jan 25, 2017 11:15, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" < > > j...@nanthrax.net > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > +1 > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > It sounds good to me. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks Dan ! > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > Regards > > > > > >> >> > > JB > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > On Jan 25, 2017, 19:39, at 19:39, Dan Halperin > > > > > >> >> > <dhalp...@google.com.INVALID> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >Here is my summary of the threads: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >Overwhelming agreement: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >- rename `release` to something more appropriate. > > > > > >> >> > > >- add `checkstyle` to the default build (it's basically > a > > > > > >> >compile > > > > > >> >> > > >error) > > > > > >> >> > > >- add more information to contributor guide > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >Reasonable agreement > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >- don't update the github instructions to make passing > > `mvn > > > > > >> >verify > > > > > >> >> > > >-P<all > > > > > >> >> > > >checks>` mandatory. Maybe add a hint that this is a good > > > > > >proxy > > > > > >> >for > > > > > >> >> what > > > > > >> >> > > >Jenkins will run. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >Unresolved: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >- whether all checks should be in `mvn verify` > > > > > >> >> > > >- whether `mvn test` is useful for most workflows > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >I'll propose to proceed with the overwhelmingly > > agreed-upon > > > > > >> >changes, > > > > > >> >> > > >and as > > > > > >> >> > > >we see increasingly many new contributors re-evaluate > the > > > > > >> >remaining > > > > > >> >> > > >issues. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >Thanks, > > > > > >> >> > > >Dan > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > > >> >> > > ><j...@nanthrax.net> > > > > > >> >> > > >wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> +1 to at least update the contribution guide and > improve > > > > > >the > > > > > >> >profile > > > > > >> >> > > >name. > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> Regards > > > > > >> >> > > >> JB > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> On 01/24/2017 09:49 PM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> My impression is that we don't have consensus on > > whether > > > > > >all > > > > > >> >checks > > > > > >> >> > > >or > > > > > >> >> > > >>> minimal checks should be the default, or whether we > can > > > > > >have > > > > > >> >both > > > > > >> >> > > >via `mvn > > > > > >> >> > > >>> test` and `mvn verify`. > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> But that doesn't prevent us from giving -P release a > > > > > >better > > > > > >> >name > > > > > >> >> and > > > > > >> >> > > >>> mentioning it in the dev guide and in some manner in > > our > > > > > >PR > > > > > >> >> > > >template. > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> Right now we are living with the combination of the > bad > > > > > >> >aspects - > > > > > >> >> > > >default > > > > > >> >> > > >>> is not thorough but not actually fast and a thorough > > > check > > > > > >is > > > > > >> >> > > >>> undocumented. > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Ismaël Mejía > > > > > >> ><ieme...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> >> > > >wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> I just wanted to know if we have achieved some > > consensus > > > > > >> >about > > > > > >> >> this, > > > > > >> >> > > >I > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> just > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> saw this PR that reminded me about this discussion. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1829 > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> It is important that we mention the existing > profiles > > > > > >(and > > > > > >> >the > > > > > >> >> > > >intended > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> checks) in the contribution guide (e.g. -Prelease > (or > > > > > >> >-Pall-checks > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> triggers > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> these validations). > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> I can add this to the guide if you like once we > define > > > > > >the > > > > > >> >checks > > > > > >> >> > > >per > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> stage/profile. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> Ismaël > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Aviem Zur > > > > > >> ><aviem...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> >> > > >wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> I agree with Dan and Lukasz. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> Developers should not be expected to know > beforehand > > > > > >which > > > > > >> >> > > >specific > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> profiles to run. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> The phase specified in the PR instructions > (`verify`) > > > > > >> >should run > > > > > >> >> > > >all the > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> relevant verifications and be the "slower" build, > > while > > > > > >a > > > > > >> >> > > >preceding > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> lifecycle, such as `test`, should run the "faster" > > > > > >> >verifications. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> Aviem. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:57 PM Robert Bradshaw > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> <rober...@google.com.invalid > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Aljoscha Krettek > > > > > >> >> > > ><aljos...@apache.org> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> I also usually prefer "mvn verify" to to the > > expected > > > > > >> >thing but > > > > > >> >> > > >I see > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> that > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> quick iteration times are key. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> I see > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/ > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> introduction-to-the-lifecycle.html > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> verify - run any checks on results of > > integration > > > > > >> >tests to > > > > > >> >> > > >ensure > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> quality criteria are met > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> Of course our integration tests are long enough > that > > > we > > > > > >> >> shouldn't > > > > > >> >> > > >be > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> putting all of them here, but I too would expect > > > > > >> >checkstyle. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> Perhaps we could introduce a verify-fast or > somesuch > > > > > >for > > > > > >> >fast > > > > > >> >> > > >(but > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> lower coverage) turnaround time. I would expect > "mvn > > > > > >> >verify > > > > > >> >> test" > > > > > >> >> > > >to > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> pass before submitting a PR, and would want to run > > > that > > > > > >> >before > > > > > >> >> > > >asking > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> others to look at it. I think this should be our > > > > > >criteria > > > > > >> >(i.e. > > > > > >> >> > > >what > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> will a new but maven-savvy user run before pushing > > > > > >their > > > > > >> >code). > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> As long as the pre-commit hooks still check > > everything > > > > > >I'm > > > > > >> >ok > > > > > >> >> > > >with > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> making > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> the default a little more lightweight. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> The fact that our pre-commit hooks take a long > time > > to > > > > > >run > > > > > >> >does > > > > > >> >> > > >change > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> things. Nothing more annoying than seeing that > your > > PR > > > > > >> >failed 3 > > > > > >> >> > > >hours > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> later because you had some trailing whitespace... > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 at 21:49 Lukasz Cwik > > > > > >> >> > > ><lc...@google.com.invalid> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> I was hoping that the default mvn verify would be > > the > > > > > >> >slow > > > > > >> >> build > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> and a > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> profile could be enabled that would skip checks to > > make > > > > > >> >things > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> faster > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> for > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> regular contributors. This way a person doesn't > > need > > > > > >to > > > > > >> >have > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> detailed > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> knowledge of all our profiles and what they do > > > > > >(typically > > > > > >> >mvn > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> verify) > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> will > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> do the right thing most of the time. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Dan Halperin > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> <dhalp...@google.com.invalid> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Jesse Anderson < > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> je...@smokinghand.com > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> @dan are you saying that mvn verify isn't doing > > > > > >> >checkstyle > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> anymore? > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> `mvn verify` alone should not be running > > > checkstyle, > > > > > >if > > > > > >> >> > > >modules > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> are > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> configured correctly. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Some of > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> the checkstyles are still running for a few > > > > > >modules. > > > > > >> >Also, > > > > > >> >> > > >the > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> contribution > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> docs will need to change. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Yes. The PR includes discussion of these other > > > > > >needed > > > > > >> >> changes, > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> unfortunately one PR can't change two > > repositories. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Please continue the discussion on the PR, then > I > > > > > >will > > > > > >> >> > > >summarize it > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> back > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> into the dev thread. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Dan > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> They say to run mvn verify before commits. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:25 AM Dan Halperin > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> <dhalp...@google.com.invalid > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Several folks seem to have been confused after > > > > > >> >BEAM-246, > > > > > >> >> > > >where > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> we > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> moved > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "slow things" into the release profile. I've > > > > > >started > > > > > >> >a > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> discussion > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> with > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1740 to > see > > if > > > > > >> >there are > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> things > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> we > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> can > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> do to fill these gaps. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Would love folks to chime in with opinions. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dan > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Jesse > Anderson > > < > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> je...@smokinghand.com> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> @Eugene, yes that failed on the checkstyle. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:27 PM Eugene > > Kirpichov > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <kirpic...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Try just -Prelease. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:21 PM Jesse > > Anderson < > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> je...@smokinghand.com > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fails because I don't have a secret key. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:03 PM > Jean-Baptiste > > > > > >> >Onofré < > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jesse, > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you try the same with: > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mvn verify -Prelease,apache-release > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/04/2017 09:53 PM, Jesse Anderson > > wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For some reason, running "mvn verify" > > isn't > > > > > >> >running > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> on > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> everything. I had checkstyle errors in > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beam-sdks-java-core > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> that > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> weren't > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being found. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was due to the extra > > > > > >parameters. > > > > > >> >I > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reran > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> with > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> plain > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "mvn > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verify" and it still didn't find them. > > From > > > > > >the > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output, > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> it > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>> doesn't > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> look > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like they're being run at all. > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jesse > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jbono...@apache.org > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> >> > > >> -- > > > > > >> >> > > >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > > >> >> > > >> jbono...@apache.org > > > > > >> >> > > >> http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > > >> >> > > >> Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
