Re: [JGIT] Request for help

Hi Douglas!

http://github.com/sonatype/JGit

The branch will be called mavenizing or so.

Will post this after I got the tests running.

LieGrue,
strub

--- On Fri, 9/4/09, Douglas Campos <douglas@theros.info> wrote:

From: Douglas Campos <redacted>
Subject: Re: [JGIT] Request for help
To: "Mark Struberg" <redacted>
Cc: "Jonas Fonseca" <redacted>, git@vger.kernel.org, "Gabe McArthur" <redacted>
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 4:44 PM
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009
at 9:47 AM, Mark Struberg [off-list ref]
wrote:


as an old saying tells us: how to climb a mountain? step
after step! ;)



I suggest we create a fresh branch based on the Shawns
current version and add all the features incrementally.



please point out where this branch will happen, I want to
give some help too.

Hi!

Work has been done at 

http://github.com/sonatype/JGit/tree/mavenize

Please feel free to pull/fork and share your changes! I'd be happy to pull it in.

@Gabe: your patch seems to got filtered by the list, I think sharing such big things is easier by using github. Would be cool if you could help us!

LieGrue,
strub

--- On Fri, 9/4/09, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 13:28, Mark Struberg[off-list ref] wrote:

Hi!

Work has been done at

http://github.com/sonatype/JGit/tree/mavenize

Please feel free to pull/fork and share your changes! I'd be happy to pull it in.

IMO, there are a lot of things that can be squashed together and
cleaned up. I know that you advocated for incremental introduction,
but it seems wrong to for example add a file and then completely
reformat it a few commits later. The same thing with the .gitignore
fixes in step 5.

Some comments ... Some of them I initially entered in github's
codereview, but I ended up writing it all here.

Commit: "mavenizing step 1: moved over the initial poms from Jasons branch"

 * Please always add an empty line between the subject and the body
   of the commit message. Like this:

  mavenizing step 1: moved over the initial poms from Jasons branch

  Signed-off-by: Mark Struberg >struberg@yahoo.de>

 * The .gitignore pattern could be further limited to "target/" ...
but you seem to change this to /target later.

In org.spearce.jgit/pom.xml:

    * The use of maven-surefire-plugin should be removed. This module
does not have any tests.

    * Shouldn't we retain the original ${groupId}:${artifactId} naming
convention, being org.spearce:jgit?

In org.spearce.jgit.test/pom.xml:

    * Dependency on jsch is unecessary since it is derived from
org.spearce.jgit.

    * Maybe name as org.spearce:jgit-test?

In org.spearce.jgit.pgm/pom.xml:

    * Maybe name as org.spearce:jgit-pgm?

Commit: "mavenizing step 2: move the core libs from src to src/main/java"

 * Please also add an empty line to this commit message.

 * You might as well squash the whitespace fixes into the first commit.

Commit: "mavenizing step 3: moving all core tests into the core module"

 * The commit message wrongly states:
    org.spearce.jgit.test/tst/ -> org.spearce.jgit/src/test/java/tst/
   Should be:
    org.spearce.jgit.test/tst/ -> org.spearce.jgit/src/test/java/

Commit: "mavenizing step 4: moving some license files and META-INF"

 * Shouldn't the commit message rather say "remove JSch"?
   Then the moving of META-INF can be put in its own commit.

 * The new NOTICE file has a few typos and the info could fit into the README

Then I got a bit lost in a huge reformatting.

-- 
Jonas Fonseca

doing a rebase -i with new stuff atm... ;)

LieGrue,
strub

--- On Fri, 9/4/09, Jonas Fonseca <jonas.fonseca@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Jonas Fonseca <redacted>
Subject: Re: [JGIT] Request for help
To: "Mark Struberg" <redacted>
Cc: "Douglas Campos" <redacted>, git@vger.kernel.org, "Gabe McArthur" <redacted>
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 8:50 PM
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 13:28, Mark
Struberg[off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

Hi!

Work has been done at

http://github.com/sonatype/JGit/tree/mavenize

Please feel free to pull/fork and share your changes!

I'd be happy to pull it in.

IMO, there are a lot of things that can be squashed
together and
cleaned up. I know that you advocated for incremental
introduction,
but it seems wrong to for example add a file and then
completely
reformat it a few commits later. The same thing with the
.gitignore
fixes in step 5.

Some comments ... Some of them I initially entered in
github's
codereview, but I ended up writing it all here.

Commit: "mavenizing step 1: moved over the initial poms
from Jasons branch"

 * Please always add an empty line between the subject and
the body
   of the commit message. Like this:

  mavenizing step 1: moved over the initial poms from
Jasons branch

  Signed-off-by: Mark Struberg >struberg@yahoo.de>

 * The .gitignore pattern could be further limited to
"target/" ...
but you seem to change this to /target later.

In org.spearce.jgit/pom.xml:

    * The use of maven-surefire-plugin should be
removed. This module
does not have any tests.

    * Shouldn't we retain the original
${groupId}:${artifactId} naming
convention, being org.spearce:jgit?

In org.spearce.jgit.test/pom.xml:

    * Dependency on jsch is unecessary since it
is derived from
org.spearce.jgit.

    * Maybe name as org.spearce:jgit-test?

In org.spearce.jgit.pgm/pom.xml:

    * Maybe name as org.spearce:jgit-pgm?

Commit: "mavenizing step 2: move the core libs from src to
src/main/java"

 * Please also add an empty line to this commit message.

 * You might as well squash the whitespace fixes into the
first commit.

Commit: "mavenizing step 3: moving all core tests into the
core module"

 * The commit message wrongly states:
    org.spearce.jgit.test/tst/ ->
org.spearce.jgit/src/test/java/tst/
   Should be:
    org.spearce.jgit.test/tst/ ->
org.spearce.jgit/src/test/java/

Commit: "mavenizing step 4: moving some license files and
META-INF"

 * Shouldn't the commit message rather say "remove JSch"?
   Then the moving of META-INF can be put in
its own commit.

 * The new NOTICE file has a few typos and the info could
fit into the README

Then I got a bit lost in a huge reformatting.

-- 
Jonas Fonseca

Thanks Jonas!

I now squashed a lot of commits together where possible and republished the rebased branch. 

Next steps:

* mavenizing org.spearce.jgit.pgm

LieGrue,
strub

--- On Fri, 9/4/09, Jonas Fonseca <jonas.fonseca@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Jonas Fonseca <redacted>
Subject: Re: [JGIT] Request for help
To: "Mark Struberg" <redacted>
Cc: "Douglas Campos" <redacted>, git@vger.kernel.org, "Gabe McArthur" <redacted>
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 8:50 PM
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 13:28, Mark
Struberg[off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

Hi!

Work has been done at

http://github.com/sonatype/JGit/tree/mavenize

Please feel free to pull/fork and share your changes!

I'd be happy to pull it in.

IMO, there are a lot of things that can be squashed
together and
cleaned up. I know that you advocated for incremental
introduction,
but it seems wrong to for example add a file and then
completely
reformat it a few commits later. The same thing with the
.gitignore
fixes in step 5.

Some comments ... Some of them I initially entered in
github's
codereview, but I ended up writing it all here.

Commit: "mavenizing step 1: moved over the initial poms
from Jasons branch"

 * Please always add an empty line between the subject and
the body
   of the commit message. Like this:

  mavenizing step 1: moved over the initial poms from
Jasons branch

  Signed-off-by: Mark Struberg >struberg@yahoo.de>

 * The .gitignore pattern could be further limited to
"target/" ...
but you seem to change this to /target later.

In org.spearce.jgit/pom.xml:

    * The use of maven-surefire-plugin should be
removed. This module
does not have any tests.

    * Shouldn't we retain the original
${groupId}:${artifactId} naming
convention, being org.spearce:jgit?

In org.spearce.jgit.test/pom.xml:

    * Dependency on jsch is unecessary since it
is derived from
org.spearce.jgit.

    * Maybe name as org.spearce:jgit-test?

In org.spearce.jgit.pgm/pom.xml:

    * Maybe name as org.spearce:jgit-pgm?

Commit: "mavenizing step 2: move the core libs from src to
src/main/java"

 * Please also add an empty line to this commit message.

 * You might as well squash the whitespace fixes into the
first commit.

Commit: "mavenizing step 3: moving all core tests into the
core module"

 * The commit message wrongly states:
    org.spearce.jgit.test/tst/ ->
org.spearce.jgit/src/test/java/tst/
   Should be:
    org.spearce.jgit.test/tst/ ->
org.spearce.jgit/src/test/java/

Commit: "mavenizing step 4: moving some license files and
META-INF"

 * Shouldn't the commit message rather say "remove JSch"?
   Then the moving of META-INF can be put in
its own commit.

 * The new NOTICE file has a few typos and the info could
fit into the README

Then I got a bit lost in a huge reformatting.

-- 
Jonas Fonseca
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Mark Struberg[off-list ref] wrote:

Hi!

Work has been done at

http://github.com/sonatype/JGit/tree/mavenize

Please feel free to pull/fork and share your changes! I'd be happy to pull it in.

@Gabe: your patch seems to got filtered by the list, I think sharing such big things is easier by using github. Would be cool if you could help us!

Ok, I'll fork and send a patch request shortly.  I was thinking about
it earlier, and I may add a couple of features that all OS projects
should follow (e.g. License in the jar, etc.).

As to a few questions that have been raised:
1) I pick the 'sources' folder because it's good metadata management.
Everything in the root folder should be about or related to managing
the project.  No direct source folders, as it clutters the layout.
Best to be perfectly clear where all the action is happening.  It's a
simple convention I wished more projects followed.
2) I haven't worked with the find-bugs plugin.  I looked it up, but it
seems to only generate documents in the 'site'/reporting profile.
Thus it wouldn't necessarily affect the building of the software.  It
would really only be useful if you had something like a Hudson CI
infrastructure or site generation going on to build a website and show
the reports.  I could certainly add that, though, if you like.
3) The LICENSE file can be at the top level.  Not really an issue for
me one way or another.  Just a personal preference on how I have
structured all of my previous Maven projects.

-Gabe

Ok, I'll fork and send a patch request shortly.  I was thinking about
it earlier, and I may add a couple of features that all OS projects
should follow (e.g. License in the jar, etc.).

Gabe, is there some task that you want to share with me? I have a
short timeframe of 4hours to invest on mavenization.

Cheers
Douglas Campos (qmx)

I'll post the pull request to github within  3-4 hours. Is that what  
you mean by invest?  My patch will contain everything I submitted  
before plus a bit more.  That patch set should contain everything  
necessary to build, plus any refinements to whatever is already in the  
'mavenize' branch.
-Gabe


On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Douglas Campos [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Ok, I'll fork and send a patch request shortly.  I was thinking about
it earlier, and I may add a couple of features that all OS projects
should follow (e.g. License in the jar, etc.).

Gabe, is there some task that you want to share with me? I have a
short timeframe of 4hours to invest on mavenization.

Cheers
Douglas Campos (qmx)

fredag 04 september 2009 19:28:39 skrev Mark Struberg [off-list ref]:

Hi!

Work has been done at 

http://github.com/sonatype/JGit/tree/mavenize

Please feel free to pull/fork and share your changes! I'd be happy to pull it in.

Why does this new mvn test only execute 1024 tests here, while the old maven setup
does 1108 ones? It seems the classes that don't match *Test.java are omitted.

In both cases I invoke with "mvn clean test"

-- robin

Haven't counted it, but I will check it.

Please note that for running the tests previously in 'exttest' you have to activate the tck profile:

$> mvn test -Ptck

And yes, we currently only run *Test.java. Any other patterns/files to include?

txs and LieGrue,
strub

--- On Sat, 9/5/09, Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> wrote:

From: Robin Rosenberg <redacted>
Subject: Re: [JGIT] Request for help
To: "Mark Struberg" <redacted>
Cc: "Douglas Campos" <redacted>, "Jonas Fonseca" <redacted>, git@vger.kernel.org, "Gabe McArthur" <redacted>
Date: Saturday, September 5, 2009, 6:25 PM
fredag 04 september 2009 19:28:39
skrev Mark Struberg [off-list ref]:

quoted

Hi!

Work has been done at 

http://github.com/sonatype/JGit/tree/mavenize

Please feel free to pull/fork and share your changes!

I'd be happy to pull it in.

quoted

Why does this new mvn test only execute 1024 tests here,
while the old maven setup
does 1108 ones? It seems the classes that don't match
*Test.java are omitted.

In both cases I invoke with "mvn clean test"

-- robin