|Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Automating quality gates on contribution: Copyright header|
Hi all,I'll jump in and add that doing this as a one-off in GeoMesa has been a mild pain. If any group takes this on, they deserve a hero's medal for a comprehensive solution!
In case anyone who uses Maven is interested, there's a fairly rigid plugin (config here) which uses multiple header files.
On the plus side, this allows us to fail the build if someone just tosses up a PR without copyright headers. On the downside, the plugin is rigid and needing to be on top of copyright is not foremost in most developer's mind.
Given the flexibility in expressing copyright (especially around formatting), I think a general solution will be challenging.
Cheers, Jim 1. https://github.com/locationtech/geomesa/blob/master/pom.xml#L2421-L2454 2. https://github.com/locationtech/geomesa/tree/master/build/copyright On 3/19/2020 9:06 AM, Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote:
On Mar 19, 2020, at 06:40, Ed Merks <ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I seems to me that this situation is another one of an unbalanced scale. All the work burden is on the Foundation staff and all the benefit is on the other side of the scale. Surely we must all recognize that the Foundation staff is not our exclusive resource to direct. Of course the Foundation staff does an excellent job and that sets high expectations, but in the end, if we want this new feature, we could also implement it ourselves...Very well said, Ed! This was my primary motivation for recommending a solution as part of the build process. Yes, there is a burden on projects to implement such things in the build process and I would argue that CBI provides an excellent platform for assisting projects as part of this implementation.On Mar 19, 2020, at 00:42, Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:36 AM Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I think it is a part of the responsibilities of the project. At the moment, it is. But I think the AC is also about challenging the status quo and finding way to improve productivity of existing contributors, and "welcome-ness" of the project. I think such automation would improve both.While I share the mission around challenging the status quo, my interpretation of our mandate is different. I see us as a source of knowledge and experience, sharing improvements to the processes defined in the bylaws and lived by our projects. I don't see the AC in a position to "request" tools to be implemented by any EF staff. If the latter would be the case we would have some sort of budget to spend. But we don't. Among our responsibilities is raising awareness where tools are missing or incomplete. But we rely on volunteering or funding to implement those. -Gunnar
Back to the top