Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 77686 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2009 16:30:18 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Jun 2009 16:30:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 19342 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jun 2009 16:30:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-dev-archive@openjpa.apache.org Received: (qmail 19278 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jun 2009 16:30:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@openjpa.apache.org Received: (qmail 19267 invoked by uid 99); 18 Jun 2009 16:30:28 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:30:28 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of allee8285@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.172 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.221.172] (HELO mail-qy0-f172.google.com) (209.85.221.172) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:30:18 +0000 Received: by qyk2 with SMTP id 2so1474517qyk.25 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:29:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=j6NLwGvdotGlpSeFvm/P8+Nkjuj7NdpWLrj+DVsEMX8=; b=EEVfzgjqaDgf6Fpu6h1tSdXhXAlUU3thpRbs6ZrMa/jzEhTPPJ/u5vq1cbrddyjQz5 FddQAXuhfJjn11pm3wfwgA3hZQrLPdB3+sWmJl8XI6GnOCgm7mqw52OePIALdzw5aRZ4 Iig9o6HvZ5iVkQsms/AyhV73Ia+Ve1M1ezMlQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=HGeqnmyhsMNRzxIo4hcPZZfZDYlLryoqebU5VR9GmUYde7wZdwpfoKHVXBzGzJMQDH lppPgx1wM2qNd4F3bUw+UWVCqhu0uNMYRHO6ptF9pb+h6KBgE14sXy/peRvWojKfJhip gtVR4jAmXO6JMpVJcddasd1eOh3WPRd76LXvw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.74.74 with SMTP id t10mr1492545qaj.333.1245342596990; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:29:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4257CEB0-C1F0-47BC-ADC7-942E19FDC5CE@SUN.com> References: <1245334004525-3113489.post@n2.nabble.com> <72c1350f0906180715u4c396caeja0150297c5580800@mail.gmail.com> <72c1350f0906180726t75d19bcdh1247ce19aeb38998@mail.gmail.com> <4257CEB0-C1F0-47BC-ADC7-942E19FDC5CE@SUN.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:29:55 -0500 Message-ID: <8e68c8e90906180929s27ac74c2u24621524ddc46bd0@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [VOTE]: Extend the source/test code line width to 120 chars From: Albert Lee To: dev@openjpa.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175cdf881e8357046ca1ebbb X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0015175cdf881e8357046ca1ebbb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Same as Craig, +1 for 120 -1 require reformatting for existing files +1 reformat as needed for better future viewing Albert Lee. On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Craig L Russell wrote: > +1 for allowing up to 120 character lines. > > -1 for reformatting existing lines by requirement > > +1 for allowing developers to reformat oddly formatted lines when found > during normal editing of files. > > Craig > > > On Jun 18, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Michael Dick wrote: > > Sorry for following my own post. >> >> Someone (Rick) reported a problem with the link, apparently my sig was >> appended to the url. >> >> [1] http://source.android.com/submit-patches/code-style-guide >> >> Hopefully the link will work better this time. Regarding formatting, I >> really don't want to reformat all the source (again). I'd prefer to stick >> with the Android convention of leaving existing files at 80 (unenforced by >> checkstyle), and new files can be 100 or 120 (enforced). >> >> Contrary to popular belief, I'm not trying to prolong this issue, I just >> want to at least raise the concern now - before we make the change. >> >> -mike >> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Michael Dick > >wrote: >> >> Hi Pinaki, >>> >>> Before I vote I'd like to know what you propose to do for existing files? >>> Should they be reformatted, left as is with the occasional long line, or >>> should we preserve history (like Andriod [1])? >>> >>> I'd also like to propose 100 as the limit (120 makes three way diffs >>> tricky >>> to fit on the screen). David Ezzio suggested 90 in the [DISCUSS] thread >>> so >>> that might warrant consideration. >>> >>> [1] http://source.android.com/submit-patches/code-style-guide >>> -mike >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Pinaki Poddar >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Proposal to increase the line width limit to 120 chars from existing 80 >>>> chars. >>>> >>>> +1 : change it to 120 (or something greater than 80) >>>> -1 : keep it to 80 (or something less than 80) >>>> 0 : i do not care >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reason: New API classes/methods have long names and often require >>>> multiple >>>> generic parameters with bounds. 80-char line width is hampering >>>> readability >>>> than helping it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> Pinaki >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> >>>> http://n2.nabble.com/-VOTE-%3A-Extend-the-source-test-code-line-width-to-120-chars-tp3113489p3113489.html >>>> Sent from the OpenJPA Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > Craig L Russell > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > -- Albert Lee. --0015175cdf881e8357046ca1ebbb--