From dev-return-2524-apmail-calcite-dev-archive=calcite.apache.org@calcite.apache.org Tue Feb 9 20:14:18 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-calcite-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-calcite-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2EFF618317 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 25632 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2016 20:14:18 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-calcite-dev-archive@calcite.apache.org Received: (qmail 25557 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2016 20:14:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@calcite.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@calcite.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@calcite.apache.org Received: (qmail 25540 invoked by uid 99); 9 Feb 2016 20:14:17 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:14:17 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 64AFBC0877 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:14:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.72 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aN-3XajkHXe3 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:14:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com (mail-pa0-f45.google.com [209.85.220.45]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 83B2031AE2 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:14:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id ez2so3990975pad.1 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:14:15 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=MGylvDR5Q3N9JUsgR4O7zYpU+IWomd2mbZ8EtLGD58g=; b=lfPfQRQzHlA7GQDe0qv8YR2mW5oPI/oLRhQQdXrxy7S48xmZKtfSYyWQcC/01L8n1/ bbHTWNZOwjoaa2A/q27pixs5xkUthIhem2lKGKaYZyso+7bXnzLAQbscM9s8iwZbBmc8 NlnPqMHJYHorwxeGV0bXn+YlkZhttjsZD84k6YS3coa3wgz0KzAMwUN4I9AjpRJ6pSXZ YdhuqUNZFbN1BhbTerWYdSrPmP8CH9FA3fCXZU4pkIkXNith1W1w8reoTIa9UpsR25nW vbADqkqngHpyre8i227+4WNCPllhXZf+YBtkMQRjVNAIGE5PmlQUvpeac1CkvBeAUQsn esTA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORN1MuJPMjKlXmxHqOiZO99MwIru8rfy6FuzGZghEfWk6E0qnFo4mhztnxmjMVnBA== X-Received: by 10.66.235.231 with SMTP id up7mr52563166pac.7.1455048854282; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:14:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.22.24.120] ([192.175.27.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l14sm14007893pfi.23.2016.02.09.12.14.12 for (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:14:13 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) Subject: Re: Apache-hosted CI (was Re: Build error in master branch) From: Julian Hyde In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:14:12 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <468E048F-7004-4A1A-85AB-16834231BACE@apache.org> References: <56929E7E.2050703@gmail.com> <5BA3E61D-494E-4D65-AED3-E3E4EE575E48@apache.org> <5692D2C8.2000204@gmail.com> <56B4265F.3090107@gmail.com> <56B97B76.2040900@gmail.com> <473ED04D-30C3-4151-85B7-EB51AE44299D@apache.org> <56BA3A35.1010307@gmail.com> <7920FEED-76FF-41F1-94A5-975878375872@apache.org> <56BA3FB7.4000609@gmail.com> To: dev@calcite.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) Is the water in the river safe to drink? Each committer is ensuring that it is safe to drink. We can change the = definition of =E2=80=9Csafe=E2=80=9D so we don=E2=80=99t put an undue = burden on the committer. But I would be inclined to put more burden on = the committer so that each developer knows that the master branch meets = a given minimum standard.=20 I totally agree with you that we need PR testing. That helps developers = submitting PRs, and also helps committers. I don=E2=80=99t worry too = much that the PR test takes ~20 minutes (including a javadoc build). But = until then, committers need to use whatever tools are that their = disposal to make sure the water is clean before they put it into the = river. If the river is not clean it makes everyone=E2=80=99s life more = difficult. Julian =20 > On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Vladimir Sitnikov = wrote: >=20 >> If there are even checkstyle errors, they should be fixed before the = commit. >=20 > Of course they should. > However, I am not sure if it wise to ask "full javadoc build" before > each commit. It takes enormous time (especially, if jdk sources are > included to properly inherit javadocs from java.* classes). >=20 > I mean: > 1) Having checkstyle separate shaves time on "test execution". > 2) Assuming we'll implement PR testing shortly, "checkstyle" job might > catch non-yet-well-formed PRs >=20 > PR-testing is something a bit different from "CI-testing of the main > brach". I wonder if we need a separate set of jobs for that (e.g. in > order not to clutter main build history). >=20 > What are the opinions here? >=20 > For my in-house Jenkins deployment I'm having great fun with a mix of > Job DSL plugin + Multijob plugin. > The former allows to script job configuration (in groovy), so I do not > need to edit jobs manually here and there. > The latter allows to organize job hierarchy in a series of phases when > each phase launches a set of concurrent jobs. > We do not need OOP for current couple of jobs, however it might be > something to consider. >=20 > Vladimir