> On Jul 19, 2015, at 21:17, Oleg Nenashev <[email protected]> wrote: > > Seems CloudBees decided to do it mass wide without discussing with Jenkins > community. ... Also, why only FB? Why not enable PMD? Why not silently enable > all static analysing collectors for jobs? > > The changes are not "mass wide", but the improvement in pull request builders > has been announced by Robert about two weeks ago. Yes, in form “I changed”.
> There are pretty much plugins being modified, but the most of them are being > maintained by by Jenkins contributors currently working at CloudBees. We want > to improve the code quality of the plugins and reduce maintenance efforts by > enforcing FindBugs in pull requests. Excellent, why not document on Jenkins Project wiki then? So all developers may help you with such activity. Some maintainers already raised that 3.0.1 doesn’t work with French. It would be good to document such thing. > I suppose such activity does not need additional approvals, because there's > no binary compatibility loss, Jenkins core dependency changes or any other > breaking changes requiring the discussion. On one hand you want improve/update core, on other not. > > Regarding other plugins... As any other Jenkins contributor, I'm eligible to > create a pull request and then to get a feedback from plugin owners and other > Jenkins contributors. Nobody merges my PRs without approvals of plugin > owners. Even if there are possible improvements in the approach selected by > me, I don't think that my pull requests violate any formal or informal > contribution rules. You are right, but i think it will be not difficult to announce/discuss such changes in central place. > Usage of static analysis has been discussed many times on Jenkins Governance > meetings. Seems i missed something. Could you point me on some date/log? > The summary of these discussions was to encourage static analysis in plugins, > so l'm strongly sure these PRs address the general need in a better quality > of Jenkins plugins. FindBugs is one of the most popular tools for Java, so > IMO it should be considered as an improvement even if it is a first baby > step. If you want to integrate other tools, feel free to go forward, any > contributions will be appreciated. As non CB person i have no access to job configuration and ability to install/update static analysing plugins. In my plugins i tried enable PMD - has no job parsing and checkstyle - failed build even with false failing option (will try investigate more, maybe it’s job configuration). > jenkinsci/pom defines findbugs version in property > https://github.com/jenkinsci/pom/blob/master/pom.xml#L623 > <https://github.com/jenkinsci/pom/blob/master/pom.xml#L623> , no need create > custom property > > Yes, it would be correct to use this property. I was not aware about it, so I > introduced my one. It is not very important, https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/1487 <https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/1487> IMHO keeping less chaos in poms is the way to improvements. > because in plugin POMs we will definitely override this property to get newer > FindBugs versions on old Jenkins cores. BTW I'll try to adjust my pull > requests. Now you have to spend more time on it ;( > > Naming of strict variable is inconsistent > > No need to keep the naming consistent (it would be preferable BTW). The > current plugin POM architecture is not designed for effectively sharing > FindBugs configurations across plugins, because they depend on Jenkins cores. imho current pom architecture has clear property naming convention. > We need a huge rework oof parent POMs architecture to make shared configs > usable. Not sure what really need to be hugely reworked rather then cutting ‘pom’ project. There are also some redundant profiles, probably you need modify them. > Currently plugins need to manage static analysis flows on their own. > > ... and seems future parent pom changes wasn't discussed in dev list > https://github.com/jenkinsci/maven-plugin/pull/48/files#r34896275 > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fjenkinsci%2Fmaven-plugin%2Fpull%2F48%2Ffiles%23r34896275&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF0NbZaVCppjTk595ckEmorxSyqyQ> > > > Yes, this proposal has not been discussed yet. I'm planning to start the > discussion only when I have some time to handle it's follow ups. IMO If you discuss it firstly you will save everyones time. Does anyone compared Efforts FB value? Default vs Max? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/F3236A3B-A151-4984-A090-966227CC3652%40gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
