Subject: [DISCUSS] 0.12.0


Thanks for pushing on this Allen.

> YETUS-946 is to verify that newer versions of check style are still
getting processed properly since it looks like the output changed. Someone
who is neck-deep in Java projects should probably take a look at this one,
since there's a very good chance test-patch is generating bad data on check
style now.  If no one cares, we can just move it out of 0.12.0.

I qualify as someone who's neck-deep in Java projects (though maven
exclusively, not gradle or sbt), let me see how I can help. I'm not sure if
it's been reported, but I think there some similar issue with
ErrorProne's output not being stable, we had to disable it for patch
testing in HBase.

While we're on the subject, I'd love some help getting multijdk fixed; it's
not reporting unit runs correctly, at least it wasn't while I was adding
JDK11 support to HBase's build.

Thanks,
Nick

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 11:40 AM Allen Wittenauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]lid> wrote:

>
> Hey gang.
>
>         IMO, I'd like to re-start getting a 0.12.0 release out the door.
>
>         There are two issues currently still assigned to 0.12.0:
>
>                 - YETUS-961 which is some cleanup on prototool support.
> I've got a PR out there for this one should be closed soon.
>                 - YETUS-946 is to verify that newer versions of check
> style are still getting processed properly since it looks like the output
> changed. Someone who is neck-deep in Java projects should probably take a
> look at this one, since there's a very good chance test-patch is generating
> bad data on check style now.  If no one cares, we can just move it out of
> 0.12.0.
>
>         Other than those two, does anyone see any other issues that should
> get prioritized?
>
>         I did have YETUS-950 (make test4tests pluggable) in the queue, but
> that work is looking like a much bigger change than I anticipated and while
> I'm blocked on part of it, I can wait till the next release to fix it.
> (Assuming I don't just finish my rewrite of test-patch first...)
>
> Thanks.