[BEAM-1513] Skip slower verifications if '-Dquick' specified. Enable them otherwise

[aviemzur]

Be sure to do all of the following to help us incorporate your contribution
quickly and easily:

• Make sure the PR title is formatted like:
  [BEAM-<Jira issue #>] Description of pull request
• Make sure tests pass via mvn clean verify. (Even better, enable
  Travis-CI on your fork and ensure the whole test matrix passes).
• Replace <Jira issue #> in the title with the actual Jira issue
  number, if there is one.
• If this contribution is large, please file an Apache
  Individual Contributor License Agreement.

---

[aviemzur]

R: @dhalperi

[jbonofre]

CC: @jbonofre

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.003%) to 69.184% when pulling 86d42a6 on aviemzur:skip-slow-verifications into 2872f86 on apache:master.

[asfbot]

Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/7593/
--none--

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 69.197% when pulling 0e4f13a on aviemzur:skip-slow-verifications into 8cfb3d1 on apache:master.

[asfbot]

Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/7615/
--none--

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.003%) to 69.18% when pulling 0e4f13a on aviemzur:skip-slow-verifications into 8cfb3d1 on apache:master.

[asfbot]

Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/7618/
--none--

[jbonofre]

Thanks for the change. I'm reviewing.

[jbonofre]

I would not condition release profile with quick property. Imagine if the release manager does mvn release:prepare -Dquick it would not be good.
Further more, the user still have to do mvn clean install -Prelease to enable all verification right ? I would activate all verifications by default and disable only with -Dquick.

[aviemzur]

If someone performing a release will specify -Dquick wouldn't that be human error? The same is true if they would specify any other flags which they should not.
Regarding the second question, this change indeed makes the verifications (checkstyle, rat, findbugs) enabled by default and disabled only with -Dquick.

[jbonofre]

Fair enough.

[jbonofre]

I'm just testing a new time.

[aviemzur]

Rebased on master

[jbonofre]

Thanks. Updating and merging.

[asfbot]

Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/7641/
--none--

[jbonofre]

LGTM. Merging.

[jbonofre]

For the record, I would mention -Dquick in the README.md and also propose a pull request for website.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 69.175% when pulling 3f01de1 on aviemzur:skip-slow-verifications into ebd4ae6 on apache:master.

[asfbot]

Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Java_MavenInstall/7646/
--none--

[davorbonaci]

Hold on -- this was sent to @dhalperi for review and was merged before he had a chance to take a look.

@jbonofre, @aviemzur, can we please reset this?

@dhalperi, I'd kindly ask to review according to the resolution on the mailing list and let's address comments in the followup pull request please? Thanks!

[dhalperi]

I read this thread https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/48383f94a0ec3f5bae6276d77f9826ee7676ac24273e3b74ec792fe1@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E as building a consensus that checks should be off by default, and relesae profile should be opt in. It seems like the following people were in favor of that:

• Aljoscha
• Dan
• Davor
• Kenn
• JB (weak)

and the following people wanted to change as this proposal:

• Aviem
• Robert

That I believe is everyone who rang into the specific discussion on-or-around Feb 10.

So in other words, I think this PR is mostly against the will of the community.

[jbonofre]

Sorry about that guys, I thought we got a consensus on the mailing list about -Dquick.

@dhalperi @aviemzur agree to revert ?

Again, my apologize, I thought we were OK.

[aviemzur]

Sure, if the majority is against, let's revert.
I wanted the PR up for review to see if we want to use it, as I believe it is a good middle ground that most could live with.