accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Newton <eric.new...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE][LAZY] Format all supported branches
Date Wed, 07 Jan 2015 21:03:57 GMT
+0

I don't think it's worth the disruption, but I don't mind if you're going
to do all the work.


On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Also, if you're using Eclipse to do the auto-format, please check for
> trailing white-space on otherwise empty javadoc lines.
>
> If you automate this in some fashion outside of Eclipse (because other
> people may prefer other editors), this would be a useful script to add to a
> top-level dev-tools folder.
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:36 PM, David Medinets <david.medinets@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Are you automating the process so that you can re-apply the same steps
> > in one year?
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Can do. It's a bit more work for me, because I have to repeat the same
> > > actions over and over again, but if it helps history look a little
> > cleaner,
> > > i can do it, and just stick to -sours and repeat for the next branch..
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Please do not do formatting during merge conflict resolution, and make
> > >> those be separate commits.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > ack'ed
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > John Vines wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> +1
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  To make it easier to apply some minimal checkstyle rules for
> > >> >>> ACCUMULO-3451,
> > >> >>> I'm announcing my intentions to do a full, one-time, auto-format
> and
> > >> >>> organize imports on all our supported branches (1.5, 1.6,
and
> > master)
> > >> to
> > >> >>> bring us up to some degree of compliance with our agreed-upon
> > >> formatting
> > >> >>> standards.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Benefits:
> > >> >>> To have additional checks, in particular against javadoc problems
> > and
> > >> >>> other
> > >> >>> common trivial warnings in the build.
> > >> >>> To ensure less divergence from our agreed-upon formatting
> standards.
> > >> >>> Formatting first makes it much less tedious and easier on
me to
> add
> > >> these
> > >> >>> checks to the build.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Issues I've considered:
> > >> >>> I will deal with all the merge conflicts.
> > >> >>> I will ignore generated thrift code.
> > >> >>> Conflicts with new code in people's branches should be minimal
> (and
> > >> >>> easily
> > >> >>> resolved by formatting according to our standards).
> > >> >>> Regarding concerns about history tracking, in general, each
format
> > >> change
> > >> >>> is small, but they are numerous. So, the impact on tracking
> history
> > >> >>> should
> > >> >>> be very minimal (you'll see things like a brace moved to the
same
> > line
> > >> as
> > >> >>> the else statement it is associated with... stuff that won't
> > generally
> > >> >>> affect your ability to debug).
> > >> >>> I'll also do a "format only" commit, separately from any
> substantive
> > >> >>> changes regarding the rule changes, so the mass formatting
change
> > will
> > >> >>> happen in one place, and it will also be easy to revert, if
> > absolutely
> > >> >>> necessary.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I'll give this 24 hours (it can be reverted if somebody objects
> > after
> > >> >>> that).
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> --
> > >> >>> Christopher L Tubbs II
> > >> >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message