Ok so NIFI-250 has been merged. Can I go ahead and do the great reformatting?
Thanks Joe On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Dan Bress <[email protected]> wrote: > Joe, > I don't have anything big I am working on presently, except NIFI-463 that > is done and waiting to be merged. No need to hold on NIFI-271 on my behalf. > > Dan Bress > Software Engineer > ONYX Consulting Services > > ________________________________________ > From: Joe Witt <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: lack of consistent formatting - how do others clean this up? > > Hello All, > > Wanted to ping and find out how close we are to being able to do the > great reformat? > > I had the incorrect branch for folks to review if they wanted to mess > with the checkstyle rules. It should have been NIFI-271. > > We're holding for NIFI-250. Just pinging because the longer we wait > the more disruptive it is to PRs that folks are working. I know Dan B > and Toivo are both working larger efforts so don't want to create too > much pain for them when merging. > > Thanks > Joe > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: >> Joe, >> I like your proposal. >> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> Benson put in a ticket a while back: >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-271 to make a DRY >>> nifi-parent we can extend from in the main nifi line and the >>> nifi-nar-plugin. >>> >>> Proposal: >>> 1) Do what Benson said. >>> 2) In that nifi-parent ensure checkstyle is always run and thus >>> consistent across any nifi item. Fail the build if any violations. >>> 3) In that nifi-parent ensure check-licenses is always run and if any >>> fails - fail the build. >>> >>> Commentary: >>> - This is not as forgiving as Sean suggested but it also does not >>> preclude us from doing the QC bot to check higher order items. >>> - This is more in-line with Adam's suggestion but gives the >>> contributor direct feedback on what is wrong that they can resolve on >>> their own without us rejecting their PR. This I am guessing was >>> Adam's real intent anyway. >>> - I will go through an make sure all existing code is in-line with the >>> checkstyle form that we will create. That will require very loud >>> music and good drinks but whatever - about as much fun as it was >>> getting all the licensing squared away. >>> >>> I noticed that accumulo has this nicely integrated into their build so >>> that gives a great example to follow. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Joe >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Sean: >>> > >>> > Nope we're still pretty basic. >>> > >>> > Thanks >>> > Joe >>> > >>> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On the thread itself: Anyone interested in pushing forward the >>> >>> model/changes to get the formatting process smoothed out please do so. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Do y'all have a QA bot yet? I'm looking to coalesce the pre-commit >>> testing >>> >> of Hadoop and HBase in the next ~2-4 weeks. Having a third unrelated >>> >> project to throw against that would help me ensure I have something >>> >> reusable that can spread across ASF projects. >>> >> >>> >> We haven't determined yet where the shared pre-commit checker will live, >>> >> but we don't seem too opinionated yet so it's unlikely we'll need lots >>> of >>> >> changes. >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Sean >>>
