Conor MacNeill wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Conor MacNeill wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
WTDY?
The downside of this idea is that ASF projects will lose warnings about incompatible changes they make that break non-ASF projects.
I said: remove non-ASF project that ASF projects don't depend upon.
You are talking about removing non-ASF projects upon which no ASF projects depend, right?. I understand this. Please have another read of what I said.
By removing those non-ASF projects from Gump, you lose an indication of the downstream effects of changes in ASF projects.
Let's take Barcode4J as a (random) example. It depends upon the ASF projects, xalan and avalon-framework. By removing Barcode4J from Gump, you will no longer notice when changes in Xalan and Avalon break Barcode4J.
In effect, barcode4J acts as a testcase for its dependencies and you propose to remove that test. I understand the motivation, I'm not particularly concerned, but there is a potential downside, which I thought was worth noting.
Conor,
my apologies. You are right and I misunderstood your statement.
Point well taken (and echoing with Leo's comment).
So, let me rephrase my proposal:
If a project:
1) is not an ASF project 2) no ASF project depend on it 3) has been broken for a while and shows no sign of activity (gump-wise)
we remove it from the gump.xml profile that brutus runs. As a result:
1) we save some time and space
2) we obtain a more reasonable indication that the gump status *is* is a measure of the community integration
Thoughts?
-- Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
