hadoop-common-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sidharta Seethana <sidharta.apa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: IMPORTANT: testing patches for branches
Date Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:42:10 GMT

I am not questioning whether checkstyle is a requirement. My concern is
that some of the rules in there are arcane/unnecessary - we should use a
better list of rules, in my opinion. This is why I filed HADOOP-11869. As
pointed out by Jason, this is not a dupe of HADOOP-11866
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11866> unless scope is being


On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Allen Wittenauer <aw@altiscale.com> wrote:

> On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Sidharta Seethana <sidharta.apache@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > About (3.) , a lot of the check style rules seem to be
> arcane/unnecessary.
> > Please see : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-11869
> a) I've closed it as a dupe of HADOOP-11866 to keep everything in one
> place.
> b) I've had HADOOP-11778 open for a while to update checkstyle to a more
> modern version…. which will also likely fix HADOOP-11546.
> c) According to our commit guidelines, checkstyle is a requirement for
> commitment.  If we want to remove that requirement, we need to modify the
> guidelines and comment out the registration line in the checkstyle.sh
> plugin. We've been ignoring it for whatever reasons, likely because the
> code in the old test-patch.sh was pretty broken to the point of being
> disabled.
>         Personally, while some view this as a "minor formatting issue", it
> reflects poorly on the project to have every file formatted differently.
> check style is meant to enforce those rules.   This *is* a quality check.
>         Given that branch-2 went from "stable" (~2.4) to "beta" (~2.6) to
> "alpha" (officially 2.7), well… I guess I shouldn't be surprised that
> quality is going down though.

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