To my knowledge there's nothing else that should be an issue. Matt
Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 5, 2015, at 10:37 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok so NIFI-250 has been merged. Can I go ahead and do the great reformatting? > > Thanks > Joe > >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Dan Bress <[email protected]> wrote: >> Joe, >> I don't have anything big I am working on presently, except NIFI-463 that >> is done and waiting to be merged. No need to hold on NIFI-271 on my behalf. >> >> Dan Bress >> Software Engineer >> ONYX Consulting Services >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Joe Witt <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:06 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: lack of consistent formatting - how do others clean this up? >> >> Hello All, >> >> Wanted to ping and find out how close we are to being able to do the >> great reformat? >> >> I had the incorrect branch for folks to review if they wanted to mess >> with the checkstyle rules. It should have been NIFI-271. >> >> We're holding for NIFI-250. Just pinging because the longer we wait >> the more disruptive it is to PRs that folks are working. I know Dan B >> and Toivo are both working larger efforts so don't want to create too >> much pain for them when merging. >> >> Thanks >> Joe >> >>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Joe, >>> I like your proposal. >>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> Benson put in a ticket a while back: >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-271 to make a DRY >>>> nifi-parent we can extend from in the main nifi line and the >>>> nifi-nar-plugin. >>>> >>>> Proposal: >>>> 1) Do what Benson said. >>>> 2) In that nifi-parent ensure checkstyle is always run and thus >>>> consistent across any nifi item. Fail the build if any violations. >>>> 3) In that nifi-parent ensure check-licenses is always run and if any >>>> fails - fail the build. >>>> >>>> Commentary: >>>> - This is not as forgiving as Sean suggested but it also does not >>>> preclude us from doing the QC bot to check higher order items. >>>> - This is more in-line with Adam's suggestion but gives the >>>> contributor direct feedback on what is wrong that they can resolve on >>>> their own without us rejecting their PR. This I am guessing was >>>> Adam's real intent anyway. >>>> - I will go through an make sure all existing code is in-line with the >>>> checkstyle form that we will create. That will require very loud >>>> music and good drinks but whatever - about as much fun as it was >>>> getting all the licensing squared away. >>>> >>>> I noticed that accumulo has this nicely integrated into their build so >>>> that gives a great example to follow. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Joe >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Sean: >>>>> >>>>> Nope we're still pretty basic. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the thread itself: Anyone interested in pushing forward the >>>>>>> model/changes to get the formatting process smoothed out please do so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Do y'all have a QA bot yet? I'm looking to coalesce the pre-commit >>>> testing >>>>>> of Hadoop and HBase in the next ~2-4 weeks. Having a third unrelated >>>>>> project to throw against that would help me ensure I have something >>>>>> reusable that can spread across ASF projects. >>>>>> >>>>>> We haven't determined yet where the shared pre-commit checker will live, >>>>>> but we don't seem too opinionated yet so it's unlikely we'll need lots >>>> of >>>>>> changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sean >>>>
