commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maison...@free.fr>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Codec 1.4 based on RC2
Date Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:17:15 GMT
Gary Gregory a écrit :
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Luc Maisonobe [mailto:Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr]
>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 5:40 AM
>> To: Commons Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Codec 1.4 based on RC2
>>
>> Niall Pemberton a écrit :
>>> I have prepared a second release candidate for Codec 1.4 following the
>>> feedback (thanks!) from the first.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Yes go ahead an release based on RC2
>> +1
>>
>> A few findbugs and checkstyle warnings, but really minor ones. Seems to
>> have very complete testing, congratulations for that.
> 
> The checkstyle warning complain about '+' starting a line instead of ending them when
building long strings. I used Eclipse (3.5) to format the method, so our checkstyle are obviously
different, which is fine. I am just wondering why pick one vs. the other. I prefer to stick
with stock Eclipse settings for formatting this item. Thoughts?

It is possible to adjust either checkstyle or eclipse to fold lines
either before or after operators. I think folding after operators is
what as been chosen in commons (at least it is the style in [math]) and
I have for myself set up eclipse to follow this convention
(preferences/java/code style/formatter, then line wrapping tab, then
open expressions/binary expressions and uncheck the wrap before operator
box at the bottom). The only discrepancy I have seen between checkstyle
and eclipse formatter is for "throws" statements in method declarations.
Eclipse format them one way and I often fix this manually to make
checkstyle happy.

I have put an eclipse formatting xml file here:
<http://people.apache.org/~luc/Apache-commons.xml>, you can try to
import it in your eclipse configuration. If you improve it, let me know.

Luc

> 
> Gary
> 
>> Luc
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>> [ ] -1 No, because...
>>>
>>> The tag for RC2 is here:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/codec/tags/CODEC_1_4_RC2/
>>>
>>> The release artefacts are here
>>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/codec-1.4-rc2/
>>>
>>> Site is available here:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/codec-1.4-rc2/site/
>>> (note: some links are relative and will be broken until deployed to
>>> proper codec home)
>>>
>>> RAT Report:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/codec-1.4-rc2/site/rat-report.html
>>>
>>> CLIRR Report:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/codec-1.4-rc2/site/clirr-report.html
>>>
>>> Release Notes:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/codec-1.4-rc2/site/changes-report.html
>>> http://people.apache.org/~niallp/codec-1.4-rc2/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Niall
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message