I didn't read correctly Aviem's email: I thought checkstyle + rat + findbugs just add 1 mn 50 to the build time.
Agree that 5 mn time extend is too long and it's better to have on a specific profile Regards JB On Feb 10, 2017, 11:36, at 11:36, Dan Halperin <dhalp...@google.com.INVALID> wrote: >Before we added checkstyle it was under a minute. Now it's over five? >That's awful IMO >On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 07:14 Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Opened JIRA ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1457 >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 4:54 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré ><j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >> > Yeah. Agree. Time extend is not huge and it's worth to add it in >verify >> > phase. >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > On Feb 10, 2017, 10:13, at 10:13, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> >wrote: >> > >This goes back to the original discussion in this thread - reduce >the >> > >amount of things pull requesters should know and keep the maven >command >> > >in >> > >the PR checklist as: 'mvn clean verify'. >> > > >> > >So if rat and findbugs do not take that long to run I think they >should >> > >be >> > >run by 'mvn clean verify' >> > > >> > >I ran a quick test on my laptop to see how much time they add to >the >> > >build >> > >(of the entire project): >> > > >> > >'mvn clean install -DskipTests' => Total time: 03:51 min >> > >'mvn clean install apache-rat:check findbugs:check -DskipTests' >=> >> > >Total >> > >time: 05:29 min (Added 01:38 min) >> > >'mvn clean install' => Total time: 09:37 min >> > >'mvn clean install apache-rat:check findbugs:check' => Total time: >> > >11:13 >> > >min (Added 01:36 min) >> > > >> > >Are these times reasonable enough to add rat and findbugs to the >> > >default >> > >build? >> > > >> > >On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:55 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré ><j...@nanthrax.net> >> > >wrote: >> > > >> > >> Hi >> > >> >> > >> We discussed about that at the beginning of the project. We >agreed to >> > >> execute rat and findbugs in a specific profile to reduce the >build >> > >time for >> > >> dev. >> > >> >> > >> That's why I do mvn clean install -Prelease before submitting a >PR >> > >and >> > >> just clean install when I'm developing. >> > >> >> > >> No problem to change that. >> > >> >> > >> Regards >> > >> JB >> > >> >> > >> On Feb 10, 2017, 07:51, at 07:51, Aviem Zur <aviem...@gmail.com> >> > >wrote: >> > >> >Can we consider adding rat-plugin and findbugs to the default >verify >> > >> >phase? >> > >> >Currently they only run when the `release` profile is enabled. >> > >> > >> > >> >On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM Aljoscha Krettek >> > ><aljos...@apache.org> >> > >> >wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> +1 to what Dan said >> > >> >> >> > >> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 at 21:40 Kenneth Knowles >> > ><k...@google.com.invalid> >> > >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > +1 >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > On Jan 25, 2017 11:15, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" ><j...@nanthrax.net> >> > >> >wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > +1 >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > It sounds good to me. >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > Thanks Dan ! >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > Regards >> > >> >> > > JB >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > On Jan 25, 2017, 19:39, at 19:39, Dan Halperin >> > >> >> > <dhalp...@google.com.INVALID> >> > >> >> > > wrote: >> > >> >> > > >Here is my summary of the threads: >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >Overwhelming agreement: >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >- rename `release` to something more appropriate. >> > >> >> > > >- add `checkstyle` to the default build (it's basically >a >> > >> >compile >> > >> >> > > >error) >> > >> >> > > >- add more information to contributor guide >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >Reasonable agreement >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >- don't update the github instructions to make passing >`mvn >> > >> >verify >> > >> >> > > >-P<all >> > >> >> > > >checks>` mandatory. Maybe add a hint that this is a good >> > >proxy >> > >> >for >> > >> >> what >> > >> >> > > >Jenkins will run. >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >Unresolved: >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >- whether all checks should be in `mvn verify` >> > >> >> > > >- whether `mvn test` is useful for most workflows >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >I'll propose to proceed with the overwhelmingly >agreed-upon >> > >> >changes, >> > >> >> > > >and as >> > >> >> > > >we see increasingly many new contributors re-evaluate >the >> > >> >remaining >> > >> >> > > >issues. >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >Thanks, >> > >> >> > > >Dan >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> > >> >> > > ><j...@nanthrax.net> >> > >> >> > > >wrote: >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >> +1 to at least update the contribution guide and >improve >> > >the >> > >> >profile >> > >> >> > > >name. >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> Regards >> > >> >> > > >> JB >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> On 01/24/2017 09:49 PM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >>> My impression is that we don't have consensus on >whether >> > >all >> > >> >checks >> > >> >> > > >or >> > >> >> > > >>> minimal checks should be the default, or whether we >can >> > >have >> > >> >both >> > >> >> > > >via `mvn >> > >> >> > > >>> test` and `mvn verify`. >> > >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >>> But that doesn't prevent us from giving -P release a >> > >better >> > >> >name >> > >> >> and >> > >> >> > > >>> mentioning it in the dev guide and in some manner in >our >> > >PR >> > >> >> > > >template. >> > >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >>> Right now we are living with the combination of the >bad >> > >> >aspects - >> > >> >> > > >default >> > >> >> > > >>> is not thorough but not actually fast and a thorough >check >> > >is >> > >> >> > > >>> undocumented. >> > >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Ismaël Mejía >> > >> ><ieme...@gmail.com> >> > >> >> > > >wrote: >> > >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >>> I just wanted to know if we have achieved some >consensus >> > >> >about >> > >> >> this, >> > >> >> > > >I >> > >> >> > > >>>> just >> > >> >> > > >>>> saw this PR that reminded me about this discussion. >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1829 >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>> It is important that we mention the existing >profiles >> > >(and >> > >> >the >> > >> >> > > >intended >> > >> >> > > >>>> checks) in the contribution guide (e.g. -Prelease >(or >> > >> >-Pall-checks >> > >> >> > > >>>> triggers >> > >> >> > > >>>> these validations). >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>> I can add this to the guide if you like once we >define >> > >the >> > >> >checks >> > >> >> > > >per >> > >> >> > > >>>> stage/profile. >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>> Ismaël >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Aviem Zur >> > >> ><aviem...@gmail.com> >> > >> >> > > >wrote: >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>> I agree with Dan and Lukasz. >> > >> >> > > >>>>> Developers should not be expected to know >beforehand >> > >which >> > >> >> > > >specific >> > >> >> > > >>>>> profiles to run. >> > >> >> > > >>>>> The phase specified in the PR instructions >(`verify`) >> > >> >should run >> > >> >> > > >all the >> > >> >> > > >>>>> relevant verifications and be the "slower" build, >while >> > >a >> > >> >> > > >preceding >> > >> >> > > >>>>> lifecycle, such as `test`, should run the "faster" >> > >> >verifications. >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>> Aviem. >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:57 PM Robert Bradshaw >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>> <rober...@google.com.invalid >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> wrote: >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Aljoscha Krettek >> > >> >> > > ><aljos...@apache.org> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> wrote: >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> I also usually prefer "mvn verify" to to the >expected >> > >> >thing but >> > >> >> > > >I see >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> that >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> quick iteration times are key. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> I see >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/ >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>> introduction-to-the-lifecycle.html >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> verify - run any checks on results of >integration >> > >> >tests to >> > >> >> > > >ensure >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> quality criteria are met >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> Of course our integration tests are long enough >that we >> > >> >> shouldn't >> > >> >> > > >be >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> putting all of them here, but I too would expect >> > >> >checkstyle. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> Perhaps we could introduce a verify-fast or >somesuch >> > >for >> > >> >fast >> > >> >> > > >(but >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> lower coverage) turnaround time. I would expect >"mvn >> > >> >verify >> > >> >> test" >> > >> >> > > >to >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> pass before submitting a PR, and would want to run >that >> > >> >before >> > >> >> > > >asking >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> others to look at it. I think this should be our >> > >criteria >> > >> >(i.e. >> > >> >> > > >what >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> will a new but maven-savvy user run before pushing >> > >their >> > >> >code). >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> As long as the pre-commit hooks still check >everything >> > >I'm >> > >> >ok >> > >> >> > > >with >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> making >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> the default a little more lightweight. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> The fact that our pre-commit hooks take a long >time to >> > >run >> > >> >does >> > >> >> > > >change >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> things. Nothing more annoying than seeing that >your PR >> > >> >failed 3 >> > >> >> > > >hours >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> later because you had some trailing whitespace... >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 at 21:49 Lukasz Cwik >> > >> >> > > ><lc...@google.com.invalid> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> wrote: >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> I was hoping that the default mvn verify would be >the >> > >> >slow >> > >> >> build >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> and a >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>> profile could be enabled that would skip checks to >make >> > >> >things >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> faster >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>> for >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> regular contributors. This way a person doesn't >need >> > >to >> > >> >have >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> detailed >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>> knowledge of all our profiles and what they do >> > >(typically >> > >> >mvn >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> verify) >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>> will >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> do the right thing most of the time. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Dan Halperin >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> <dhalp...@google.com.invalid> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Jesse Anderson < >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> je...@smokinghand.com >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> @dan are you saying that mvn verify isn't doing >> > >> >checkstyle >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> anymore? >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> `mvn verify` alone should not be running >checkstyle, >> > >if >> > >> >> > > >modules >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> are >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>> configured correctly. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Some of >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> the checkstyles are still running for a few >> > >modules. >> > >> >Also, >> > >> >> > > >the >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> contribution >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> docs will need to change. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Yes. The PR includes discussion of these other >> > >needed >> > >> >> changes, >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> unfortunately one PR can't change two >repositories. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Please continue the discussion on the PR, then >I >> > >will >> > >> >> > > >summarize it >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> back >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> into the dev thread. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Dan >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> They say to run mvn verify before commits. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:25 AM Dan Halperin >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> <dhalp...@google.com.invalid >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Several folks seem to have been confused after >> > >> >BEAM-246, >> > >> >> > > >where >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> we >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> moved >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> the >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "slow things" into the release profile. I've >> > >started >> > >> >a >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> discussion >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> with >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/1740 to see >if >> > >> >there are >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> things >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> we >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> can >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> do to fill these gaps. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Would love folks to chime in with opinions. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dan >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Jesse >Anderson < >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> je...@smokinghand.com> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> @Eugene, yes that failed on the checkstyle. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:27 PM Eugene >Kirpichov >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <kirpic...@google.com.invalid> wrote: >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Try just -Prelease. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:21 PM Jesse >Anderson < >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> je...@smokinghand.com >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fails because I don't have a secret key. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:03 PM >Jean-Baptiste >> > >> >Onofré < >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jesse, >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you try the same with: >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mvn verify -Prelease,apache-release >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/04/2017 09:53 PM, Jesse Anderson >wrote: >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For some reason, running "mvn verify" >isn't >> > >> >running >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checkstyle >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> on >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> everything. I had checkstyle errors in >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beam-sdks-java-core >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> that >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> weren't >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being found. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought this was due to the extra >> > >parameters. >> > >> >I >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reran >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> with >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> the >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> plain >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "mvn >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verify" and it still didn't find them. >From >> > >the >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output, >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> it >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> doesn't >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> look >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like they're being run at all. >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jesse >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jbono...@apache.org >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>> >> > >> >> > > >> -- >> > >> >> > > >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> > >> >> > > >> jbono...@apache.org >> > >> >> > > >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> > >> >> > > >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >>