On 4.6.2015 16:18, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > On Thu, 04 Jun 2015, Petr Spacek wrote: >> On 4.6.2015 15:11, Rob Crittenden wrote: >>> Alexander Bokovoy wrote: >>>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015, David Kupka wrote: >>>>> On 06/04/2015 12:43 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015, David Kupka wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> David Kupka >>>>>> >>>>>>> From f68607e9a3db4cd8893c465d804615aac34afc29 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>>>>> From: David Kupka <dku...@redhat.com> >>>>>>> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:10:37 +0200 >>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] Allow to skip lint when building FreeIPA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Target 'lint' does nothing when SKIP_LINT is set to anything else than >>>>>>> "no". >>>>>>> By default the variable is unset and lint is executed as always was. >>>>>> Is there any reason to support this? >>>>>> >>>>>> I personally don't like to be able to skip lint as Python gives you too >>>>>> many ways of shooting yourself. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand, running lint every time even when building >>>>> unchanged master is waste of (a lot of) time. I really prefer running >>>>> ./make-lint (or make lint) to check the code and 'make rpms' to build >>>>> packages. >>>>> >>>>> Moreover, the default behavior stays the same, lint is always run. >>>> So you can add a hook to use a git committish and check the change >>>> between them so that only when there is indeed a change, you run lint. >>>> And for cases when you are running off a tarball, simply disable lint -- >>>> automatically. >>>> >>>> What in reality will happen if we allow setting SKIP_LINT permanently in >>>> the environment, we'd be less careful on the code checks. Sorry to be >>>> harsh here but that is how it goes. If lint is costly to run, optimize >>>> to run it only when it really is needed but not disable it voluntarily. >>>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> I totally agree that it is getting out of hand speed/resource-wise. I had >>> more >>> than one build fail due to OOM. But I don't think disabling it is the right >>> way because, as Alexander said, once disabled always disabled. >> >> Sorry, I do not agree. All automated build systems will not have the variable >> defined so arbitrary pylint-detectable error will be *in the worst case* >> (where no developer ever runs pylint) caught by: >> - Jenkins builds (after each commit) > Let them run make-lint > >> - Coverity build (every day) >> - COPR (as needed) >> - Koji (before packages for Fedora are built). > None of the above run off the git repo directly and none of the above > run 'make rpms'. > >> That sounds like a good resource trade-off, especially if we agree that >> automated tests are necessary anyway because pylint cannot uncover semantical >> errors. > Sorry, this all looks fine until you actually look at the flow in > Makefile. > > lint target is called by > > rpms: rpmroot rpmdistdir version-update lint tarballs > client-rpms: rpmroot rpmdistdir version-update lint tarballs > srpms: rpmroot rpmdistdir version-update lint tarballs > > None of these targets is called when running 'make all' or 'make client'
It is surely better to let developers building RPMs 10x a day to just replace make-lint with an empty file and *then* let them forgot about this change. This discussion costed me too much time so I'm giving up. Have a nice day! -- Petr^2 Spacek -- Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code
