Dropping 'stream' profile

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

Hi,
Currently in order to build the full code you have to add -Dstream
property, this in turn will activate the 'stream' profile.
Additionally to run tests in 'stream' submodule you have to also add
-DstreamTests.

This is very annoying, and now that we are going to release the 'stream'
storage module as first class citizen it does not make much sense.

This additional profile makes it more complex project wide operations like
the release procedure.
For instance I broke master branch yesterday because I did not advance the
version in poms in the stream submodule.

It is giving a lot of problems on code coverage stuff as well, because we
have a very complex configuration of surefire.

My proposal is to drop those profiles and let the stream module to be built
together with the other parts.


For the ones like me that work only on bookkeeper-server this change won't
affect every day work.

I would prefer that Sijie do this change as he introduced those profiles
and knowns very well all the tricks.

Regards
Enrico
-- 


-- Enrico Olivelli

Re: Dropping 'stream' profile

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

Confirming my opinion:
+1 for dropping it in 4.9
+0 for dropping it in 4.8 branch
No change for 4.7 branch

Enrico

Il mar 20 nov 2018, 13:19 Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> ha scritto:

> Resurrecting this thread, since it seems discusssions and decisions
> have been made about it, but there's no record of these anywhere that
> matters.
>
> 4.8.1-rc1 is out for vote, and once again if you build it in the
> default way, random things do not work. Currently standalone doesn't
> work straight away (and it kicks off a build in the background without
> indicating whether anything is going on).
>
> So, my questions are:
> - Are we keeping -Dstream?
> - If so, why?
>
> And if we do, keep it, we need to disable anything in the default
> build that depends on it.
>
> I'll hold off from voting on the RC until there's a concrete plan to
> resolve all this.
>
> -Ivan
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:11 AM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually let's hold on this change for now.
> >
> > I was actually talking with JV about this. There are two many directories
> > (modules) at the root level.
> > It is a bit unclear about what modules. We might consider reorganizing
> the
> > modules to make it clearer.
> > I will come back with a proposal soon.
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 5:18 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Sijie
> > > This is a proposal
> > > It is possilble that the precommit stuff will need a follow up patch,
> to
> > > add a new precommit "subtask"
> > >
> > > Please check it out
> > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1680
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > > Il giorno lun 13 ago 2018 alle ore 09:57 Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>
> ha
> > > scritto:
> > >
> > > > +1 for dropping the profiles.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > I have no problem with this proposal. I am fine with dropping the
> > > > profiles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sijie
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 2:53 AM Enrico Olivelli <
> eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >> Currently in order to build the full code you have to add -Dstream
> > > > >> property, this in turn will activate the 'stream' profile.
> > > > >> Additionally to run tests in 'stream' submodule you have to also
> add
> > > > >> -DstreamTests.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is very annoying, and now that we are going to release the
> > > 'stream'
> > > > >> storage module as first class citizen it does not make much sense.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This additional profile makes it more complex project wide
> operations
> > > > like
> > > > >> the release procedure.
> > > > >> For instance I broke master branch yesterday because I did not
> advance
> > > > the
> > > > >> version in poms in the stream submodule.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It is giving a lot of problems on code coverage stuff as well,
> because
> > > > we
> > > > >> have a very complex configuration of surefire.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My proposal is to drop those profiles and let the stream module
> to be
> > > > built
> > > > >> together with the other parts.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For the ones like me that work only on bookkeeper-server this
> change
> > > > won't
> > > > >> affect every day work.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I would prefer that Sijie do this change as he introduced those
> > > profiles
> > > > >> and knowns very well all the tricks.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regards
> > > > >> Enrico
> > > > >> --
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -- Enrico Olivelli
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
>
-- 


-- Enrico Olivelli

Re: Dropping 'stream' profile

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

Ivan drafted an issue which seems a good plan to me.
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/1822

Meanwhile we are releasing 4.8.1, the fix for this situation will be most
probably on 4.9.

Please refer to the issue for the details and for comments

Thanks

Enrico



Il mar 20 nov 2018, 20:42 Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Thank you for creating the issue.
>
> Created a quick fix for `standalone`:
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1823
>
> Integration tests requires some cleanup to refactor the structure.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:33 AM Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > > Yes. That is a problem but it is not related stream profile. Let's
> > separate
> > > unrelated issues into a different thread.
> > > Also I would suggest creating an issue in github when a problem is
> > > considered a bug, so the discussion can be more organized.
> >
> > I'll create a bug.
> >
> > > > I would suggest we also add a switch to enable the stream profile
> with
> > > > -Dall to harmonize with the package naming.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am fine with a `-Dall`
> >
> > I created a top level issue on github for sorting this out.  #1822
> >
> > I have to get on a plane now, but I'll add a bunch of subtasks
> > tomorrow. Feel free to add anything I miss.
> >
> > -Ivan
> >
>
-- 


-- Enrico Olivelli

Re: Dropping 'stream' profile

[Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>]

Thank you for creating the issue.

Created a quick fix for `standalone`:
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1823

Integration tests requires some cleanup to refactor the structure.

- Sijie

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:33 AM Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:

> > Yes. That is a problem but it is not related stream profile. Let's
> separate
> > unrelated issues into a different thread.
> > Also I would suggest creating an issue in github when a problem is
> > considered a bug, so the discussion can be more organized.
>
> I'll create a bug.
>
> > > I would suggest we also add a switch to enable the stream profile with
> > > -Dall to harmonize with the package naming.
> > >
> >
> > I am fine with a `-Dall`
>
> I created a top level issue on github for sorting this out.  #1822
>
> I have to get on a plane now, but I'll add a bunch of subtasks
> tomorrow. Feel free to add anything I miss.
>
> -Ivan
>

Re: Dropping 'stream' profile

[Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>]

> Yes. That is a problem but it is not related stream profile. Let's separate
> unrelated issues into a different thread.
> Also I would suggest creating an issue in github when a problem is
> considered a bug, so the discussion can be more organized.

I'll create a bug.

> > I would suggest we also add a switch to enable the stream profile with
> > -Dall to harmonize with the package naming.
> >
>
> I am fine with a `-Dall`

I created a top level issue on github for sorting this out.  #1822

I have to get on a plane now, but I'll add a bunch of subtasks
tomorrow. Feel free to add anything I miss.

-Ivan

Re: Dropping 'stream' profile

[Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:42 AM Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:

> > There is no decision made. However I am -1 to drop stream profile, as I
> > have explained in may different threads that I have been mentioned.
>
> Where were these threads? I did a search in github and the list, but
> couldn't see anything. i didn't even try slack, search there is awful.
>

e.g. 4.8.0 rc0 vote email thread.


>
> > Here is the summary I don’t like dropping stream profile.
> >
> > I put table service and distributedlog under stream, because the whole
> > stuff is built as an extension to bookkeeper core (ledger service). So
> this
> > extension is optionally. With that being said, the bookkeeper
> distribution
> > should can be built with and without stream profile.
>
> So this is what is confusing and annoying about the profile. We say
> it's optional, but then we only test with it on. We generate the
> distributed binary packages with the profile. We only test end to end
> functionality with the profile. So it's optional, but we always turn
> the option on.
>
> If we are to keep the profile, then the optional stuff should be truly
> optional. I.e. server-bin with the profile should be identical to
> server-bin without the flag. And all integration testing that isn't
> testing functionality in the extensions should be against server-bin
> without the profile. Anything that requires the profile in integration
> testing should be in a different directory to make it clear that it's
> not testing core.
>
> I agree that the separation of core and extensions is good. But right
> now, we're not actually enforcing it because this is an integration
> problem, and we're only testing with the profile on.
>

I have explained that before. We need to improve integration tests.


>
> > All the scripts is provided to be working at two conditions: in a
> released
> > binary package and in a source directory. If it is running in a source
> > directory and it is not built, it will run maven command to build and
> > generating the classpath.
>
> It did this, but when I typed yes, there was no indication that it was
> doing this. It looked like the process hung, so i killed it, and only
> later discovered the build had continued. I would consider this a bug.
> Should be noisier.
>

Yes. That is a problem but it is not related stream profile. Let's separate
unrelated issues into a different thread.
Also I would suggest creating an issue in github when a problem is
considered a bug, so the discussion can be more
organized.


>
> I would suggest we also add a switch to enable the stream profile with
> -Dall to harmonize with the package naming.
>

I am fine with a `-Dall`


>
> -Ivan
>

Re: Dropping 'stream' profile

[Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>]

> There is no decision made. However I am -1 to drop stream profile, as I
> have explained in may different threads that I have been mentioned.

Where were these threads? I did a search in github and the list, but
couldn't see anything. i didn't even try slack, search there is awful.

> Here is the summary I don’t like dropping stream profile.
>
> I put table service and distributedlog under stream, because the whole
> stuff is built as an extension to bookkeeper core (ledger service). So this
> extension is optionally. With that being said, the bookkeeper distribution
> should can be built with and without stream profile.

So this is what is confusing and annoying about the profile. We say
it's optional, but then we only test with it on. We generate the
distributed binary packages with the profile. We only test end to end
functionality with the profile. So it's optional, but we always turn
the option on.

If we are to keep the profile, then the optional stuff should be truly
optional. I.e. server-bin with the profile should be identical to
server-bin without the flag. And all integration testing that isn't
testing functionality in the extensions should be against server-bin
without the profile. Anything that requires the profile in integration
testing should be in a different directory to make it clear that it's
not testing core.

I agree that the separation of core and extensions is good. But right
now, we're not actually enforcing it because this is an integration
problem, and we're only testing with the profile on.

> All the scripts is provided to be working at two conditions: in a released
> binary package and in a source directory. If it is running in a source
> directory and it is not built, it will run maven command to build and
> generating the classpath.

It did this, but when I typed yes, there was no indication that it was
doing this. It looked like the process hung, so i killed it, and only
later discovered the build had continued. I would consider this a bug.
Should be noisier.

I would suggest we also add a switch to enable the stream profile with
-Dall to harmonize with the package naming.

-Ivan

Re: Dropping 'stream' profile

[Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 4:19 AM Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote:

> Resurrecting this thread, since it seems discusssions and decisions
> have been made about it, but there's no record of these anywhere that
> matters.


There is no decision made. However I am -1 to drop stream profile, as I
have explained in may different threads that I have been mentioned.

Here is the summary I don’t like dropping stream profile.

I put table service and distributedlog under stream, because the whole
stuff is built as an extension to bookkeeper core (ledger service). So this
extension is optionally. With that being said, the bookkeeper distribution
should can be built with and without stream profile.

I insist having this profile to enforce people organizing the code and
structure in that way.

The reason for bkctl should be applied to standalone.

>
>
> 4.8.1-rc1 is out for vote, and once again if you build it in the
> default way, random things do not work.


Again building bookkeeper without stream profile should work. If it
doesn’t, it is a bug to fix.

Currently standalone doesn't
> work straight away

(and it kicks off a build in the background without
> indicating whether anything is going on).


All the scripts is provided to be working at two conditions: in a released
binary package and in a source directory. If it is running in a source
directory and it is not built, it will run maven command to build and
generating the classpath.


>
> So, my questions are:
> - Are we keeping -Dstream?
>

-1 to drop the profile

- If so, why?


As I said, the bookkeeper should be built without stream profile. If not,
that is a bug.


>
> And if we do, keep it, we need to disable anything in the default
> build that depends on it.


Yes. The organization of the code structure should be fixed.


>
> I'll hold off from voting on the RC until there's a concrete plan to
> resolve all this.
>
> -Ivan
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:11 AM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Actually let's hold on this change for now.
> >
> > I was actually talking with JV about this. There are two many directories
> > (modules) at the root level.
> > It is a bit unclear about what modules. We might consider reorganizing
> the
> > modules to make it clearer.
> > I will come back with a proposal soon.
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 5:18 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Sijie
> > > This is a proposal
> > > It is possilble that the precommit stuff will need a follow up patch,
> to
> > > add a new precommit "subtask"
> > >
> > > Please check it out
> > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1680
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > > Il giorno lun 13 ago 2018 alle ore 09:57 Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>
> ha
> > > scritto:
> > >
> > > > +1 for dropping the profiles.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > I have no problem with this proposal. I am fine with dropping the
> > > > profiles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sijie
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 2:53 AM Enrico Olivelli <
> eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >> Currently in order to build the full code you have to add -Dstream
> > > > >> property, this in turn will activate the 'stream' profile.
> > > > >> Additionally to run tests in 'stream' submodule you have to also
> add
> > > > >> -DstreamTests.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is very annoying, and now that we are going to release the
> > > 'stream'
> > > > >> storage module as first class citizen it does not make much sense.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This additional profile makes it more complex project wide
> operations
> > > > like
> > > > >> the release procedure.
> > > > >> For instance I broke master branch yesterday because I did not
> advance
> > > > the
> > > > >> version in poms in the stream submodule.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It is giving a lot of problems on code coverage stuff as well,
> because
> > > > we
> > > > >> have a very complex configuration of surefire.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My proposal is to drop those profiles and let the stream module
> to be
> > > > built
> > > > >> together with the other parts.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For the ones like me that work only on bookkeeper-server this
> change
> > > > won't
> > > > >> affect every day work.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I would prefer that Sijie do this change as he introduced those
> > > profiles
> > > > >> and knowns very well all the tricks.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regards
> > > > >> Enrico
> > > > >> --
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -- Enrico Olivelli
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
>

Re: Dropping 'stream' profile

[Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>]

Resurrecting this thread, since it seems discusssions and decisions
have been made about it, but there's no record of these anywhere that
matters.

4.8.1-rc1 is out for vote, and once again if you build it in the
default way, random things do not work. Currently standalone doesn't
work straight away (and it kicks off a build in the background without
indicating whether anything is going on).

So, my questions are:
- Are we keeping -Dstream?
- If so, why?

And if we do, keep it, we need to disable anything in the default
build that depends on it.

I'll hold off from voting on the RC until there's a concrete plan to
resolve all this.

-Ivan
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:11 AM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually let's hold on this change for now.
>
> I was actually talking with JV about this. There are two many directories
> (modules) at the root level.
> It is a bit unclear about what modules. We might consider reorganizing the
> modules to make it clearer.
> I will come back with a proposal soon.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 5:18 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sijie
> > This is a proposal
> > It is possilble that the precommit stuff will need a follow up patch, to
> > add a new precommit "subtask"
> >
> > Please check it out
> > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1680
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> > Il giorno lun 13 ago 2018 alle ore 09:57 Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > +1 for dropping the profiles.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I have no problem with this proposal. I am fine with dropping the
> > > profiles.
> > > >
> > > > Sijie
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 2:53 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >> Currently in order to build the full code you have to add -Dstream
> > > >> property, this in turn will activate the 'stream' profile.
> > > >> Additionally to run tests in 'stream' submodule you have to also add
> > > >> -DstreamTests.
> > > >>
> > > >> This is very annoying, and now that we are going to release the
> > 'stream'
> > > >> storage module as first class citizen it does not make much sense.
> > > >>
> > > >> This additional profile makes it more complex project wide operations
> > > like
> > > >> the release procedure.
> > > >> For instance I broke master branch yesterday because I did not advance
> > > the
> > > >> version in poms in the stream submodule.
> > > >>
> > > >> It is giving a lot of problems on code coverage stuff as well, because
> > > we
> > > >> have a very complex configuration of surefire.
> > > >>
> > > >> My proposal is to drop those profiles and let the stream module to be
> > > built
> > > >> together with the other parts.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> For the ones like me that work only on bookkeeper-server this change
> > > won't
> > > >> affect every day work.
> > > >>
> > > >> I would prefer that Sijie do this change as he introduced those
> > profiles
> > > >> and knowns very well all the tricks.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards
> > > >> Enrico
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -- Enrico Olivelli
> > > >>
> > >
> >

Re: Dropping 'stream' profile

[Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>]

Actually let's hold on this change for now.

I was actually talking with JV about this. There are two many directories
(modules) at the root level.
It is a bit unclear about what modules. We might consider reorganizing the
modules to make it clearer.
I will come back with a proposal soon.

- Sijie

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 5:18 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sijie
> This is a proposal
> It is possilble that the precommit stuff will need a follow up patch, to
> add a new precommit "subtask"
>
> Please check it out
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1680
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno lun 13 ago 2018 alle ore 09:57 Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> ha
> scritto:
>
> > +1 for dropping the profiles.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have no problem with this proposal. I am fine with dropping the
> > profiles.
> > >
> > > Sijie
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 2:53 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >> Currently in order to build the full code you have to add -Dstream
> > >> property, this in turn will activate the 'stream' profile.
> > >> Additionally to run tests in 'stream' submodule you have to also add
> > >> -DstreamTests.
> > >>
> > >> This is very annoying, and now that we are going to release the
> 'stream'
> > >> storage module as first class citizen it does not make much sense.
> > >>
> > >> This additional profile makes it more complex project wide operations
> > like
> > >> the release procedure.
> > >> For instance I broke master branch yesterday because I did not advance
> > the
> > >> version in poms in the stream submodule.
> > >>
> > >> It is giving a lot of problems on code coverage stuff as well, because
> > we
> > >> have a very complex configuration of surefire.
> > >>
> > >> My proposal is to drop those profiles and let the stream module to be
> > built
> > >> together with the other parts.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> For the ones like me that work only on bookkeeper-server this change
> > won't
> > >> affect every day work.
> > >>
> > >> I would prefer that Sijie do this change as he introduced those
> profiles
> > >> and knowns very well all the tricks.
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >> Enrico
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -- Enrico Olivelli
> > >>
> >
>

Re: Dropping 'stream' profile

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

Sijie
This is a proposal
It is possilble that the precommit stuff will need a follow up patch, to
add a new precommit "subtask"

Please check it out
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1680

Enrico

Il giorno lun 13 ago 2018 alle ore 09:57 Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> ha
scritto:

> +1 for dropping the profiles.
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have no problem with this proposal. I am fine with dropping the
> profiles.
> >
> > Sijie
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 2:53 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> Currently in order to build the full code you have to add -Dstream
> >> property, this in turn will activate the 'stream' profile.
> >> Additionally to run tests in 'stream' submodule you have to also add
> >> -DstreamTests.
> >>
> >> This is very annoying, and now that we are going to release the 'stream'
> >> storage module as first class citizen it does not make much sense.
> >>
> >> This additional profile makes it more complex project wide operations
> like
> >> the release procedure.
> >> For instance I broke master branch yesterday because I did not advance
> the
> >> version in poms in the stream submodule.
> >>
> >> It is giving a lot of problems on code coverage stuff as well, because
> we
> >> have a very complex configuration of surefire.
> >>
> >> My proposal is to drop those profiles and let the stream module to be
> built
> >> together with the other parts.
> >>
> >>
> >> For the ones like me that work only on bookkeeper-server this change
> won't
> >> affect every day work.
> >>
> >> I would prefer that Sijie do this change as he introduced those profiles
> >> and knowns very well all the tricks.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Enrico
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Enrico Olivelli
> >>
>

Re: Dropping 'stream' profile

[Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>]

+1 for dropping the profiles.

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have no problem with this proposal. I am fine with dropping the profiles.
>
> Sijie
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 2:53 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Currently in order to build the full code you have to add -Dstream
>> property, this in turn will activate the 'stream' profile.
>> Additionally to run tests in 'stream' submodule you have to also add
>> -DstreamTests.
>>
>> This is very annoying, and now that we are going to release the 'stream'
>> storage module as first class citizen it does not make much sense.
>>
>> This additional profile makes it more complex project wide operations like
>> the release procedure.
>> For instance I broke master branch yesterday because I did not advance the
>> version in poms in the stream submodule.
>>
>> It is giving a lot of problems on code coverage stuff as well, because we
>> have a very complex configuration of surefire.
>>
>> My proposal is to drop those profiles and let the stream module to be built
>> together with the other parts.
>>
>>
>> For the ones like me that work only on bookkeeper-server this change won't
>> affect every day work.
>>
>> I would prefer that Sijie do this change as he introduced those profiles
>> and knowns very well all the tricks.
>>
>> Regards
>> Enrico
>> --
>>
>>
>> -- Enrico Olivelli
>>

Re: Dropping 'stream' profile

[Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>]

I have no problem with this proposal. I am fine with dropping the profiles.

Sijie

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 2:53 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> Currently in order to build the full code you have to add -Dstream
> property, this in turn will activate the 'stream' profile.
> Additionally to run tests in 'stream' submodule you have to also add
> -DstreamTests.
>
> This is very annoying, and now that we are going to release the 'stream'
> storage module as first class citizen it does not make much sense.
>
> This additional profile makes it more complex project wide operations like
> the release procedure.
> For instance I broke master branch yesterday because I did not advance the
> version in poms in the stream submodule.
>
> It is giving a lot of problems on code coverage stuff as well, because we
> have a very complex configuration of surefire.
>
> My proposal is to drop those profiles and let the stream module to be built
> together with the other parts.
>
>
> For the ones like me that work only on bookkeeper-server this change won't
> affect every day work.
>
> I would prefer that Sijie do this change as he introduced those profiles
> and knowns very well all the tricks.
>
> Regards
> Enrico
> --
>
>
> -- Enrico Olivelli
>