db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@debrunners.com>
Subject Re: "Cosmetic" changes
Date Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:22:33 GMT
Hash: SHA1

Kathey Marsden wrote:

> I think a clean-up effort would be great. I especially think it is a
> wonderful way for folks to get their feet wet with Derby.  It is great
> to go through the process of making changes, running tests and
> submitting a patch just to get the process under one's belt.
> I think, however, it is ok to allow some cleanup to go along with
> patches.  Sometimes you are working in an area and see something and it
> is easy to fix it while you are there.  Of course there is a balance.
> If the cleanup makes the diff unclear, then it should wait.

I agree, there were two reasons I removed files from patches that had
cosmetic cleanups:

 1) The files only contained cosmetic changes, if they had contained
real changes as well, I would have left them in the patch. (subject to
Kathey's concern's about not confusing the patch).

 2) The changes were only re-formatting changes.

I also think that there are two types of cosmetic changes:

A) Jeremy's exmaples of code that causes warnings in IDE's, unused
variables & imports. Also variable/method renaming for clarity (ie.
better reflect the use or purpose of the item), fixing comments or
additional comments that make the code easier to understand.
 Changes in this group A) I think are a good cleanup exercise.

B) Re-formatting. Changes in this group are a nightmare. :-(
Because everyone has a different idea of what the correct formatting is.
It also tends to make life difficult for someone who is modifying the
file as any format cleanup will tend to cause merge failures.
I'm loathe to even raise this because of the endless discussions that
can ensue.

Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


View raw message