Re: Projects for Google Summer of Code 2017

[Aviem Zur]

Kenn that scholarly documents project sounds awesome.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:48 PM Kenneth Knowles 
wrote:

> In fact, I have just learned that our deadline to file project _is_
> February 9th. Having good ideas is part of the ASF's application process.
>
> Here's a TL;DR of the instructions:
>
> 0. ASF members and committers can be mentors; find one for any project
> idea.
> 1. Mentors: understand what it means to be a mentor [1].
> 2. Mentors: create a JIRA issue for each idea:
> 2A. assign to the mentor.
> 2B. label with "gsoc2017" and "mentor"; a JIRA search for these is at [2].
> 2C. label with _prerequisites_ such as programming language, tools, area.
>
> More info about ASF+GSOC is at [3].
>
> Kenn
>
> [1] http://community.apache.org/guide-to-being-a-mentor.html
> [2] http://s.apache.org/gsoc2017ideas
> [3] http://community.apache.org/gsoc.html
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Pablo Estrada  >
> wrote:
>
> > I believe that Beam falls within the umbrella of the Apache Software
> > Foundation. All we'd need to do is register mentors for projects [1][4],
> > and create JIRA issues with the appropriate labels [2]. So, instead our
> > deadline for the project proposal is on the day when mentoring
> > organizations are announced (Feb 27) [3].
> >
> > [1].
> > https://community.apache.org/gsoc.html#prospective-asf-mentors-read-this
> > [2].
> > https://community.apache.org/use-the-comdev-issue-tracker-
> > for-gsoc-tasks.html
> > [3]. https://developers.google.com/open-source/gsoc/timeline
> > [4]. https://community.apache.org/guide-to-being-a-mentor.html
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:03 AM Kenneth Knowles 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think this is a great idea. I also participated in GSOC once.
> > >
> > > I've been particularly interested in coming up with great new
> > applications
> > > of Beam to new domains. In chatting with professors at the University
> of
> > > Washington, I've learned that scholars of many fields would really like
> > to
> > > explore new and highly customized ways of processing the growing body
> of
> > > publicly-available scholarly documents. This seems like a great
> project,
> > > since we love doing this to Shakespeare's works, and there are
> thousands
> > of
> > > times as many public articles so there's non-toy scale issues. And yet,
> > it
> > > does seem like it can be scoped appropriately.
> > >
> > > The deadline for a mentoring organization is Feb 9 so let's put
> together
> > a
> > > proposal!
> > >
> > > Kenn
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Pablo Estrada
> >  > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi there,
> > > > The GSOC 2017 [1] is coming soon. I figured it would be nice if we
> > could
> > > > find small projects that a student could implement this summer.
> Apache
> > > > already takes part in this, and all we'd need to do is label Jira
> > issues
> > > as
> > > > GSOC projects. Any ideas for projects?
> > > >
> > > > As a note, during my grad school I participated in GSOC a couple of
> > times
> > > > and I'd say they were some of my most rewarding development
> > experiences.
> > > >
> > > > [1] - https://developers.google.com/open-source/gsoc/
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

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  
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  wrote:
>
>> Opened JIRA ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1457
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 4:54 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>
>> 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 
>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
>
>> > >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 
>> > >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
>> > >
>> > >> >wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> +1 to what Dan said
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 at 21:40 Kenneth Knowles
>> > >
>> > >> >> wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> > +1
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > On Jan 25, 2017 11:15, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré"
>
>> > >> >wrote:
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > > +1
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > > It sounds good to me.
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > > Thanks Dan !
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > > Regards
>> > >> >> > > JB⁣​
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> > > On Jan 25, 2017, 19:39, at 19:39, Dan Halperin
>> > >> >> > 
>> > >> >> > > 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> > >> >> > > >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
>> > >> >> > > >
>> > >> >> > > >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