hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Code guidelines and bash
Date Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:39:26 GMT
[moving to common-dev@]

The 80 character limit is for legibility across dev environments. If
it's impeding that goal in bash, then nobody will insist on it.

Since HADOOP-9902 rewrites most of this code, the particular cases can
be worked through in that JIRA. -C

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Allen Wittenauer <aw@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey folks:
>    Deep linked by http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/CodeReviewChecklist is the
> rule  that line length should be ideally maximum 80 chars.  (Sun coding
> guidelines.)  In general, it's a good idea and it works for many many
> languages...
>    Now the caveat.
>    As most of you know, I've been hacking on HADOOP-9902 off and on for a
> year now.   [For those that don't, this is an almost complete rewrite of
> most of the major shell code that we ship with Hadoop.  The stuff that was
> missed I'll pick it up after this gets committed.]   As part of this, I
> recently reformatted the last patch to fit that 80 character requirement as
> best I could.  The result is... not good.  Not good at all.  In many ways,
> it actually hurt readability even beyond the lack of indentation that Bash
> Beautifier doesn't support for line continuation. (That case statement in
> bin/hadoop is painful to look at and makes me cry.)
>    Barring anymore feedback, it's pretty much ready to commit. But before
> that happens, do we want to specify that bash has different line length
> requirements?  Say 120 chars?  Most of the problems stem from our usage of
> REALLY LONG env var names that can't really be changed at this point
> without *massively* screwing backward compatibility. (Hello,
> YARN_RESOURCEMANAGER_OPTS... I'm talking about you!).
>   Bouncing the idea around a few folks, they all seem to agree that 80 is
> just too hard for bash given our general use case, but I think it'd be good
> to have something official.
> Thoughts?
> Thanks.

View raw message