https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17226
> On Dec 5, 2018, at 11:26 AM, Jacob Barrett wrote:
>
> They are investigating security concerns around the integration.
>
>> On Dec 5, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote:
>>
>> Maybe we need to poke infra about this
>>
>>> On 11/9/18
They are investigating security concerns around the integration.
> On Dec 5, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote:
>
> Maybe we need to poke infra about this
>
>> On 11/9/18 3:07 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote:
>> I opened a ticket with infra earlier this week to enable PR integration.
>> There
Maybe we need to poke infra about this
On 11/9/18 3:07 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote:
I opened a ticket with infra earlier this week to enable PR integration. There
hasn’t been any movement.
On Nov 9, 2018, at 3:00 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
As per running periodically , LGTM runs it every Monday.
A
I opened a ticket with infra earlier this week to enable PR integration. There
hasn’t been any movement.
> On Nov 9, 2018, at 3:00 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>
> As per running periodically , LGTM runs it every Monday.
>
> As for who would fix it, LGTM mentions which commit caused the failure and
As per running periodically , LGTM runs it every Monday.
As for who would fix it, LGTM mentions which commit caused the failure and who
was the author of it. So i think its the author's responsibility to fix it.
Personally, LGTM list a table that shows how many alerts we caused by which
author
I don't have strong opinions on this, but I am always suspect of CI jobs
that indicate quality that only run periodically. If the job discovers
something that needs improvement who is going to do the work and when?
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:36 PM Kirk Lund wrote:
> Well, we could run it periodica
Well, we could run it periodically such as weekly rather than as part of
the main pipeline or precheckin.
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Aditya Anchuri wrote:
> +1, although I do wonder about the overhead of making PRs increasing more
> than it already feels like to me as a new contributor (as
+1, although I do wonder about the overhead of making PRs increasing more
than it already feels like to me as a new contributor (as the person who
made the geospatial contribution). If this was a gradle task maybe like
spotless?
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:20 PM Bruce Schuchardt
wrote:
> I'd like t
FindBugs is another one that could potentially help some. I get tired of
adding reviews that say "Please change this member variable to be private"
-- tools like LGTM and FindBugs can help guide us to better code and
prevent us from losing ground in something like the improvements you all
have made
I'd like to see LGTM run on pull requests. Otherwise I think we're
fighting a losing battle trying to improve the quality of our code. For
instance, we just had a nice contribution of geospatial functionality
that raised 5 alerts, but we only found out about it after the code was
merged to dev
10 matches
Mail list logo
