Did you guys consider working with pull requests on github? Works very well in my experience.
Eelco On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Brian Topping <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, that will create a patch of the whole branch, which is already there. > > On Aug 15, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > >> git diff myBranch..master > some.patch >>> >>> On Aug 15, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >>> >>>> can we have a patch that changes those places to use Args.*? :) >>>> >>>> -igor >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Brian Topping <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi guys, >>>>> >>>>> Just to provide some personal perspective and it's somewhat off-topic... >>>>> there's always a lot of things we can work around here (code can always >>>>> be compensated for with more code), but I think there is a responsibility >>>>> with all code to "leave it cleaner than you found it". To say it >>>>> differently, to me, any amount of effort today to keep things clean is >>>>> worth it, because tomorrow (with additional code thrown on), it may take >>>>> twice as long to undo it and we may not have options to work around the >>>>> problem any longer (thus forcing that we cannot avoid cleaning it up with >>>>> twice the investment). >>>>> >>>>> When I looked at the actual usages of JUnit, it was primarily on >>>>> junit.framework.Assert in about three or four random files, when in fact >>>>> the standing pattern is to use o.a.w.util.lang.Args or throw an >>>>> IllegalStateException if there is a problem with incomplete >>>>> initialization. >>>>> >>>>> In this case, removing JUnit as a dependency from util in fact improves >>>>> the code, and in the process does not bury a dependency even deeper. In >>>>> fact, there was a comment in one of the POMs alluding to the question of >>>>> why JUnit was a runtime dependency. I don't think I am alone in >>>>> believing that it should have been removed. This doesn't answer to >>>>> o.a.w.util.tester.WicketTester, but that's better answered in Martin's >>>>> email. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers and thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Brian >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 15, 2011, at 2:44 AM, Andreas Pieber wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hey guys, >>>>>> >>>>>> I just want to jump in here. While I think it a good idea to check >>>>>> license >>>>>> headers via a plugin instead of a junit tests this is not a "no-go" for >>>>>> the >>>>>> osgification. There are various libs out there importing org.junit... in >>>>>> the >>>>>> compile phase instead of the test-phase (although not required). At >>>>>> Servicemix such libs are typically wrapped using the ;optional:=true >>>>>> attribute. Since junit is not required at runtime I think we can go the >>>>>> same >>>>>> way for wicket here. >>>>>> >>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> Andreas >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 22:24, Brian Topping <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi guys, thanks for the responses. The repository issue (as well as an >>>>>>> unknown about outside plugins) was a concern, part of why I started a >>>>>>> custom >>>>>>> plugin. But if folks are comfortable with it, I think it's the right >>>>>>> way to >>>>>>> go. It's used in Brix and it's been very robust and convenient. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I created a branch at >>>>>>> https://github.com/topping/wicket/tree/myclila-plugin containing the >>>>>>> changes. There are a lot of them and it took most of the day to get it >>>>>>> right. The plugin expects the license header to be formatted slightly >>>>>>> differently (for instance using "/**" instead of "/*" to start a Java >>>>>>> header). Their site suggests using <aggregation>, but that results in >>>>>>> all >>>>>>> the configuration being in the parent POM, something that isn't very >>>>>>> good >>>>>>> encapsulation of configuration. So I broke it out between projects so >>>>>>> it's >>>>>>> easier to maintain. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for the specific excludes, I may not have precisely the same excludes >>>>>>> that the old test cases had. I started by copying them to the best of >>>>>>> my >>>>>>> perception, then tuned them for the tests (which seems to be the most >>>>>>> sensitive aspect). Can anyone review the patch to see if there are any >>>>>>> obvious mistakes? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If not, it would be very helpful for the OSGi effort if we could get >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> patch applied. Removing the dependency on JUnit from wicket-util is >>>>>>> pretty >>>>>>> important to the effort, and I think this provides benefits to the >>>>>>> project >>>>>>> moving forward as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let me know what I can do to facilitate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, Brian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2011, at 9:05 AM, jcgarciam wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem with com.mycila.maven-license-plugin:maven-license-plugin >>>>>>>> as far as i remember is that is not yet published in central maven >>>>>>>> repository, so it cannot be used without adding their repo. in the >>>>>>> pom.xml >>>>>>>> which is a problem if you are trying to get your project deployed in >>>>>>>> OSS >>>>>>>> Sonatype. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Martin Grigorov-4 [via Apache Wicket] >>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Brian, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The main user of JUnit in production is WicketTester. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> About ApacheLicenceTest - Jeremy tried to replace it with >>>>>>>>> com.mycila.maven-license-plugin:maven-license-plugin in 1.4.x but >>>>>>>>> didn't finish it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Brian Topping <[hidden email]< >>>>>>> http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3742539&i=0>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> oic, there's a ApacheLicenseHeaderTest in every project. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm in the process of isolating the junit.framework package to a test >>>>>>>>> dependency so JUnit is not a dependency in production code. If it >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>> into a plugin, the instances of per-project ApacheLicenseHeader >>>>>>>>> configuration would need to come from the POM. That's kind of where >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> belongs (it's part of the build, after all), but it could easily be >>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>> into a configuration file that resides in each project to keep the >>>>>>>>> POMs >>>>>>>>> clean. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Failing that, creating a separate module to contain >>>>>>>>>> o.a.w.util.license >>>>>>>>> that is a test scope dependency would be a last resort. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm going to go ahead and create a plugin that reads a configuration >>>>>>> file >>>>>>>>> in each project. Some of the configurations are lengthy >>>>>>>>> (org.apache.wicket.util.license.ApacheLicenceHeaderTest). That would >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> mess in the pom. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:09 PM, Brian Topping wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone know why org.apache.wicket.util.license is in >>>>>>> wicket-util's >>>>>>>>> production source directory? I'm guessing it has something to do with >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> desire to get the license plugin to fire every time a build is made, >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>> that's the case, it would be better handled as a Maven plugin. It's >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> test and it's not a part of any public API. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm happy to create a plugin if that's the case, please let me know. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, Brian >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Martin Grigorov >>>>>>>>> jWeekend >>>>>>>>> Training, Consulting, Development >>>>>>>>> http://jWeekend.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the >>>>>>>>> discussion >>>>>>>>> below: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/o-a-w-util-license-package-in-production-source-folder-tp3742291p3742539.html >>>>>>>>> To start a new topic under Apache Wicket, email >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from Apache Wicket, click here< >>>>>>> http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=1842946&code=amNnYXJjaWFtQGdtYWlsLmNvbXwxODQyOTQ2fDEyNTYxMzc3ODY= >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> JC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>>> http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/o-a-w-util-license-package-in-production-source-folder-tp3742291p3742824.html >>>>>>>> Sent from the Forum for Wicket Core developers mailing list archive at >>>>>>> Nabble.com. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
