Re: [DISCUSS] LGTM on pull requests

2018-12-05 Thread Jacob Barrett
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17226 > On Dec 5, 2018, at 11:26 AM, Jacob Barrett wrote: > > They are investigating security concerns around the integration. > >> On Dec 5, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: >> >> Maybe we need to poke infra about this >> >>> On 11/9/18

Re: [DISCUSS] LGTM on pull requests

2018-12-05 Thread Jacob Barrett
They are investigating security concerns around the integration. > On Dec 5, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > Maybe we need to poke infra about this > >> On 11/9/18 3:07 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote: >> I opened a ticket with infra earlier this week to enable PR integration. >> There

Re: [DISCUSS] LGTM on pull requests

2018-12-05 Thread Bruce Schuchardt
Maybe we need to poke infra about this On 11/9/18 3:07 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote: I opened a ticket with infra earlier this week to enable PR integration. There hasn’t been any movement. On Nov 9, 2018, at 3:00 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote: As per running periodically , LGTM runs it every Monday.

Re: [DISCUSS] LGTM on pull requests

2018-11-09 Thread Jacob Barrett
I opened a ticket with infra earlier this week to enable PR integration. There hasn’t been any movement. > On Nov 9, 2018, at 3:00 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote: > > As per running periodically , LGTM runs it every Monday. > > As for who would fix it, LGTM mentions which commit caused the failure

Re: [DISCUSS] LGTM on pull requests

2018-11-09 Thread Nabarun Nag
As per running periodically , LGTM runs it every Monday. As for who would fix it, LGTM mentions which commit caused the failure and who was the author of it. So i think its the author's responsibility to fix it. Personally, LGTM list a table that shows how many alerts we caused by which author

Re: [DISCUSS] LGTM on pull requests

2018-11-09 Thread Alexander Murmann
I don't have strong opinions on this, but I am always suspect of CI jobs that indicate quality that only run periodically. If the job discovers something that needs improvement who is going to do the work and when? On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:36 PM Kirk Lund wrote: > Well, we could run it

Re: [DISCUSS] LGTM on pull requests

2018-11-09 Thread Kirk Lund
Well, we could run it periodically such as weekly rather than as part of the main pipeline or precheckin. On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Aditya Anchuri wrote: > +1, although I do wonder about the overhead of making PRs increasing more > than it already feels like to me as a new contributor (as

Re: [DISCUSS] LGTM on pull requests

2018-11-09 Thread Aditya Anchuri
+1, although I do wonder about the overhead of making PRs increasing more than it already feels like to me as a new contributor (as the person who made the geospatial contribution). If this was a gradle task maybe like spotless? On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:20 PM Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > I'd like

Re: [DISCUSS] LGTM on pull requests

2018-11-09 Thread Kirk Lund
FindBugs is another one that could potentially help some. I get tired of adding reviews that say "Please change this member variable to be private" -- tools like LGTM and FindBugs can help guide us to better code and prevent us from losing ground in something like the improvements you all have