Am 16.03.2022 um 10:47 schrieb Carlo Jelmini:
Hi,
regarding missing license headers: would it be an option to run the check as
part of the default build?
+1
This problem happened to me as well.
Locally, we need to build with the “rat” profile to check the license headers,
but because it
to run multiple builds. Making
the check as part of the default build would prevent this kind of issues.
Carlo
From: Angela Schreiber
Date: Wednesday, 16 March 2022 at 08:35
To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: OAK-9712: blob-cloud-azure instead of segment-azure?
hi
regarding missing l
Smiljanic
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 6:41 PM
To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: OAK-9712: blob-cloud-azure instead of segment-azure?
Hi,
Recently I experienced a problem with another PR build, and it seemed
caused by build infrastructure issues.
This time, I thought the same
Hi,
Recently I experienced a problem with another PR build, and it seemed
caused by build infrastructure issues.
This time, I thought the same is happening again, and before merging PR
(that added new test cases and updated doc), run tests locally.
I am sorry I have rushed with the PR approval
Hi,
On 08.03.22, 15:55, "Matt Ryan" wrote:
> - Open issues, questions, concerns, etc. in tickets and PRs must be
> addressed satisfactorily before code is committed.
I agree. To me it seems like changes for OAK-9712 were rushed in.
The PR also had failed checks for most of the modules, because
Hi,
Recently OAK-9712 [0] was created and quickly resolved, via the associated
PR [1]. Between those two events, I commented on OAK-9712 with a question
that I wanted to be clarified. It seems however that this question wasn't
seen before the PR was merged.
I assume this was a simple
