Em 15/07/13 20:54, Sande Gilda escreveu:
On 07/15/2013 06:18 PM, Rafael Benevides wrote:
> Hi all, Sande and Pete,
>
> One significant change in JDF Quickstarts repo is the use of git
> submodules to bring remote quickstarts to JDF. But... Sometimes
> remote quickstarts doesn't ( and don't want/need to ) follow JDF
> Contributing guide (
>
https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jboss-as-quickstart/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
> ).
>
> There are some requirements from QSTools (
>
https://docspace.corp.redhat.com/docs/DOC-132902 ) that I believe
> that we should update to split in two categories ( desired and
> mandatory ).
>
> The definitions bellow are what I see differences across JBoss projects:
> - package and groupId name (of course) - We already defined that
> using org.jboss.quickstarts.(eap|wfk|...) is optional from other
> Quickstarts (not JDF) but should be consistent within the product
Agreed. Could we define properties or some other type of file that
could define the valid packages, groups, etc for each product?
Yes. That's Pete's suggestion. We could keep this definition file on
QStools github repo. I thought in a yaml format to keep it.
Sande, Can you edit the QSTools requirement docspace to define what
should be a "per product" Checker ? Nobody other than you is the best to
provide this definition. I understand that what will not be a "per
product" Checker, it should be a mandatory instruction.
With this in hand I can start a QSTools refactoring. I was wondering
that a "per product" violation is a "warning" level violation and
I'll
sign it on QSTools report with a yellow color. In a mandatory violation
I'll sign it with a red color.
I'm trying to make QSTools a tooling to help us and it should be update
as we need. But recently, the reported violations seems more a barrier
than a gate.
Pete,
Any objections ?
> - License Headers
Yes. We saw this with the Spring-based quickstarts that originate
elsewhere. I'd still like to see this reported in case they are EAP
quickstarts.
> - Spacing and Indentation formats
>
I don't see this as being something someone would object too. But
maybe I'm wrong? Again, I'd still like to see this reported in case
they are EAP quickstarts.
One example: The Infinispan project is the one who uses a different
format. They use 3-space for indentation.
> What do you think? Is it it desired to be more or less
restrictive
> for other quickstarts and also turn it in an automated pattern?
>
> I'm bringing this discussion mainly because it is a recurrent
> discussion for remote projects like
> - Infinispan:
>
https://github.com/infinispan/jdg-quickstart/pull/20#issuecomment-20968520
> - GateIn:
>
http://transcripts.jboss.org/channel/irc.freenode.org/%23jboss-jdf/2013/%...
> - And probable new others like BRMS, Fuse and Switchyard Quickstarts.
- Adding
Spring Quickstarts to the list :)
>
> --
> Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer
> Red Hat Brazil
> +55-61-9269-6576
>
> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
> See how it works at
redhat.com