commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles Sadowski <>
Subject Re: [ALL] Commons Parent reports
Date Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:40:08 GMT

> >
> >> > [...]
> >> >
> >> > The tools are there, but you have to tell people that they _must_ use them.
> >>
> >> Commons has already enough rules and process. As long as the releases
> >> are have clean code I wouldn't be too anal about the commits in
> >> between.
> >
> > I think that the main disagreement is here. Source code must be a clear read
> > for the _developers_. To put it bluntly, I don't care that the releases have
> > cleanly formatted code, as almost nobody is going to read those packaged
> > sources!
> Nobody objects using Checkstyle. Personally I object a default
> Checkstyle config, which everybody must override. Nearly every
> components has specifics, so everybody MUST override. What if you
> don't want to use Checkstyle? Can you disable it?
> What, if you use Sun conventions and Maven conventions are the
> default? Much work! Please leave the checkstyle question to where it
> belongs, and this is not parent pom, but the individual component.
> And thats what I meant with: as long as we don't have a common
> codestyle, i does not make much sense to have a common checkstyle
> configuration.

I thought that the question was whether to generate a CheckStyle report, not
whether the configuration should be the same...

> Secondly, I have not had the feeling in the past years that checkstyle
> helped me so much (including non open source projects). And so far, my
> code was readable.

My code is also readable...

I forgot to mention earlier in this thread that a code formatter will not
detect missing comments; I've also seen that some people using IDE let the
software generate totally useless "place-holder" Javadoc comments. Hence
no tool can afterwards detect that documentation is missing.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message