Hey Eelco, Yes, using pull requests, but was more focused on the semantics before the implementation, if I were to try to sum it up. Hopefully we're all building shared understanding and reducing risk so we can all get what we need.
Your input is certainly welcome here!! B On Aug 16, 2011, at 6:04 PM, Eelco Hillenius wrote: > 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
