What your saying about te Mars bars is true. On the remainder... 220 days is something that everyone on this list should take notice of. This is serious reductions in what is commonly acknowledged throughout our industry as technical debt. @Tom, Unpredictable builds in XMLRPC are OK... Because there are around 20 or so people the see the builds when they happen. We can fix them reasonable quickly or else realize that there is an environment error.
On the other hand, what are we doing about these friggin war's? I did a bit of investigation. However I did not track it to parent Pom. I don't think we have any scope set for many native dependencies e.g. OODT deps inheriting from another OODT module. I think scope would help us reduce the size of these beasts/ On Friday, October 30, 2015, Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> wrote: > On a slightly different note, seen Sonar, I've used every trick in the > book(Idea Analysis and fixing etc) and worked my nads off trying to get the > Tech Debt number down, and after whats probably 5 full days of work on it, > I've got rid of...... 220 days. Grim. > > Also because xmlrpc isn't mocked sometimes when the builds run on the same > box, you get the tests failing because of the port conflicts which doesn't > help. > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > I was thinking more a Haggis followed by 2 battered mars bars... but > > either way, not sure scope is particularly useful if you look at the poms > > they are dragged in as transient dependencies by the various OODT > modules, > > it might be more of a big fat, <exclude> block for the stuff that wont > get > > used by the webapps. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > > lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > >> You bet they are heavy... > >> Heavy as a sumo wrestler after eating five fish suppers and tanning six > >> bottles of fine french wine. Then washing it down with 2 mars bars and a > >> can of diet coca cola. > >> <scope> is our friend. > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi > <javascript:;>> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Looking at some of the dependencies in the fmbrowser for example, do > you > >> > need the full aws java sdk? (12mb), poi xml schemas(5.4mb), netcdf is > >> 11mb > >> > although I assume that is required. > >> > > >> > Thats 28mb of dependencies without even trying, they are pretty heavy > >> > weight. > >> > > >> > Tom > >> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < > >> > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Ack if we can reduce that would be stellar > >> > > > >> > > Sent from my iPhone > >> > > > >> > > > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > >> > > lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > No way... so it cas-product-0.11-20151028.223453-48.war > >> > > > 60777 KB > >> > > > I just cleared my ~/.m2 cache and by God these artifacts make Moby > >> > Dick's > >> > > > forehead look like the tails side of a one pence piece.. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > >> > > > lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> OK so it turns out that pcs-services-0.11-20151028.223756-49.war > is > >> > > around > >> > > >> the same size > >> > > >> 62186 KB > >> > > >> These are HUGE for web application containers. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > >> > > >> lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >>> Hi Folks, > >> > > >>> I am slightly concerned that the pcs-opsui .war artifact is as > >> large > >> > as > >> > > >>> Aundrey The Giants left arse cheek... 67831KB's to be precise. > >> > > >>> I wonder if there is something we can do about this. None of the > >> OODT > >> > > >>> dependencies have any <scope> so I wonder if there is actual > >> scope to > >> > > >>> reduce the soze of the artifact. > >> > > >>> Lewis > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> -- > >> > > >>> *Lewis* > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> -- > >> > > >> *Lewis* > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > *Lewis* > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *Lewis* > >> > > > > > -- *Lewis*
