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
>> > >> >> > > >>
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> >
>>

Reply via email to