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 >