Re: MNG-6533 and MNG-6529

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MNG-6533 and MNG-6529

Robert Scholte-8
These PRs look fine, I'll run them on our CI servers.

thanks,
Robert

On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 10:41:58 +0100, Mickael Istria <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As part of a major performance improvement in m2e, we'd like to use the
> ProjectBuilder.build(list_of_poms, ...) which drastically reduce CPU and
> RAM consumption compared to iterating on ProjectBuilder.build(single_pom,
> ...).
> We identified 2 relatively small limitations blocking m2e from adoption
> ProjectBuilder.build(list_of_poms,...) that seems to just be missing
> features compared to ProjectBuilder.build(single_pom...) because no-one
> needed them to so far. We're covered these 2 issues in MNG-6529 and
> MNG-6533; and there are pull requests open for both.
> We'd appreciate if those can be targeted for review (and if everything is
> fine, merge) as part of next release.
>
> Thanks in advance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MNG-6533 and MNG-6529

Robert Scholte-8
https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven/job/MNG-6533/
https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven/job/MNG-6529/

Both look fine.
If another Maven team member can second these PRs I will merge them to  
master.

thanks,
Robert

On Sat, 08 Dec 2018 11:16:26 +0100, Robert Scholte <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> These PRs look fine, I'll run them on our CI servers.
>
> thanks,
> Robert
>
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 10:41:58 +0100, Mickael Istria <[hidden email]>  
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As part of a major performance improvement in m2e, we'd like to use the
>> ProjectBuilder.build(list_of_poms, ...) which drastically reduce CPU and
>> RAM consumption compared to iterating on  
>> ProjectBuilder.build(single_pom,
>> ...).
>> We identified 2 relatively small limitations blocking m2e from adoption
>> ProjectBuilder.build(list_of_poms,...) that seems to just be missing
>> features compared to ProjectBuilder.build(single_pom...) because no-one
>> needed them to so far. We're covered these 2 issues in MNG-6529 and
>> MNG-6533; and there are pull requests open for both.
>> We'd appreciate if those can be targeted for review (and if everything  
>> is
>> fine, merge) as part of next release.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MNG-6533 and MNG-6529

Enrico Olivelli
Il dom 9 dic 2018, 16:24 Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

>
> https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven/job/MNG-6533/
>
> https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/maven-box/job/maven/job/MNG-6529/
>
> Both look fine.
> If another Maven team member can second these PRs I will merge them to
> master.
>

I left some comment on 6529 about adding a test case.

Regarding 6533 I don't have enough experience to say it is good

Enrico

>
> thanks,
> Robert
>
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2018 11:16:26 +0100, Robert Scholte <[hidden email]>
>
> wrote:
>
> > These PRs look fine, I'll run them on our CI servers.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Robert
> >
> > On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 10:41:58 +0100, Mickael Istria <[hidden email]>
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> As part of a major performance improvement in m2e, we'd like to use the
> >> ProjectBuilder.build(list_of_poms, ...) which drastically reduce CPU and
> >> RAM consumption compared to iterating on
> >> ProjectBuilder.build(single_pom,
> >> ...).
> >> We identified 2 relatively small limitations blocking m2e from adoption
> >> ProjectBuilder.build(list_of_poms,...) that seems to just be missing
> >> features compared to ProjectBuilder.build(single_pom...) because no-one
> >> needed them to so far. We're covered these 2 issues in MNG-6529 and
> >> MNG-6533; and there are pull requests open for both.
> >> We'd appreciate if those can be targeted for review (and if everything
> >> is
> >> fine, merge) as part of next release.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> --


-- Enrico Olivelli
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MNG-6533 and MNG-6529

Mickael Istria-2
In reply to this post by Robert Scholte-8
Hi,

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:37 PM Enrico Olivelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

> IMHO maybe you can ask the contributor to add the 'allow edits from
> maintainers' or you can import the commit into another branch


As the contributor here, here is how I think things would work best for me
and the project, short and long term: committers/reviewers just ask on the
PR what they they'd like the author to change in the PR, explaining why
they think it's necessary (ideally referencing some "how to contribute"
documentation where the workflow is documented). So I learn the practices
of the project and will be more productive next time, and I ship a "more
complete" work by myself without requiring committers to provide
extra-patches.

Cheers,
 --
Mickael Istria
Eclipse IDE <https://www.eclipse.org/downloads/eclipse-packages/>
developer, for Red Hat Developers <https://developers.redhat.com/>