Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Robert Bradshaw < rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > with their respective costs (e.g. runtime, > dependencies) expected utility (how likely it is to find something) and > actionability (how easy it would be for someone to fix the reported errors > without

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Thanks Kenn, it's perfectly clear now ;) > That was Kenn's vote. I'm of the opposite opinion (at least I think checkstyle should be done by default, possibly others). It's clear many people aren't very happy with

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

Thanks Kenn, it's perfectly clear now ;) Regards JB On 02/22/2017 04:40 PM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: Can we finalize a decision about this ? So basically, the question is: 1. Do we enable checkstyle, findbugs,

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

Hi guys, sorry, I thought we got a consensus about the usage of quick but it doesn't seem so. I reverted the corresponding commit. Can we finalize a decision about this ? So basically, the question is: 1. Do we enable checkstyle, findbugs, ... (all things increasing the build duration,

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

On Jenkins it's possible to run several jobs in the same time but on different executor. That's the easiest way. Regards JB On Feb 15, 2017, 10:15, at 10:15, "Ismaël Mejía" wrote: >This question got lost in the discussion, but there is a small >improvement >that we can do: >

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

This question got lost in the discussion, but there is a small improvement that we can do: > Just to check, are we doing parallel builds? We are on jenkins, not in travis, there is an ongoing PR to fix this. What we can improve is to check if we can run some of the test suites in parallel to

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

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

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: > I think Dan's framework of thinking is right -- what is the probability of > something finding a real issue, vs. the cost of running that all the time. > > Obviously, we cannot run *everything* all the time.

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

I think Dan's framework of thinking is right -- what is the probability of something finding a real issue, vs. the cost of running that all the time. Obviously, we cannot run *everything* all the time. There's an infinite number of things to run and infinite matrix of configurations. Many tests

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

Since the discussion has returned to the thread rather than Dan's PR, I want to paraphrase the point I feel strongest about here: *For a new contributor, I want to minimize the distance between them deciding to hack and becoming our friends.* So I don't want them to have to learn much, if

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

I'm with Dan on this. The iteration time should be cut down as low as possible and we have Jenkins to ensure that tests pass. As a side note, there are IntelliJ plugins for Checkstyle and Findbugs and my personal setup highlights Checkstyle violations as errors in the code so I can immediately

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

On Feb 10, 2017 07:36, "Dan Halperin" wrote: Before we added checkstyle it was under a minute. Now it's over five? That's awful IMO Checkstyle didn't cause all that, did it? Noting that findbugs takes quite a lot more time. Javadoc and jar are the other two slow

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

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

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

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

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

+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,

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

+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

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

+1 On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, 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

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

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

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

+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

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

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

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Aljoscha Krettek 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

Re: Better developer instructions for using Maven?

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