As you know Wicket officially is still in Apache SVN.
GitHub is a mirror of Apache's Git repo which is read-only.

Pull Requests will make it easier for the (Git) users but then I have
to extract the patch and apply it in SVN...
If this step is easy to automate then it will be usable.

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Eelco Hillenius
<[email protected]> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com

Reply via email to