Re: [jdf-dev] QSTools - Quickstarts tooling automation update to meet remote quickstarts

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 >> >