Calcite wouldn't be a great project without Julian's and Vladimir's contributions. Everybody wants the best for the project and we should work out to find a solution.
I believe that writing is not great to understand somebody's tone and intentions and many things can be misunderstood. Maybe for this and other similar issues we should try to hold live discussions. Shall we try to organize an online meeting? Best, Stamatis On Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 2:25 AM Albert <zinki...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've used the new version calcite with new version of IntelliJ, everything > works. I like that. > I can see valadmir put some efforts in this, I respect that. and all effort > put in to the codebase should be respected. > from my side, I don't contribute as much now, but occasionally I would look > at the new stuff added so as long I can REPL the code I am okay with it. > as for 'kotlin', like when it was first brought up in the calcite mail > thread, I am curious about that and would be willing to learn more. > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:45 AM Michael Mior <mm...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Le mar. 17 déc. 2019 à 15:26, Vladimir Sitnikov > > <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > > Vladimir>Quidem, CalciteAssert > > > Michael>If you want to propose removing either of these, we could have > a > > > Michael>discussion about it, but you're talking about code which is > > already > > > Michael>heavily used throughout Calcite. > > > > > > The point of "we assume contributors are good at Java, thus we must > keep > > > the code to be Java-only" is weak. > > > New contributors will likely see Quidem and CalciteAssert for the first > > > time, and Java knowledge does not help there. > > > > > > > I didn't make that point. Those are you words. > > > > > It does not imply that languages like Quidem and/or CalciteAssert are a > > bad > > > fit for their job, but it is wrong to judge > > > based solely on "it is not Java". > > > > > > Michael>The consensus from the discussion you started seems to be that > > > Michael>Kotlin should not be added to the tests > > > > > > It is not like that. > > > > I counted at least 5 different contributors stating they did not think > > Kotlin should be introduced into test code. You seemed to be the only > > one in the discussion strongly promoting it. If that's not consensus, > > I must have misinterpreted the discussion. > > > > > > > > Michael>I agree that for these specific tests, readability is improved > > > > > > That is exactly my point. There's an improvement, the downsides are > > small, > > > so I just committed it. > > > > > > Michael>But many tests require more than this > > > > > > That is to be discussed on a test by test basis (or use-case by > > use-case). > > > For instance, strings (especially, multi-line ones) with $ is an issue > > for > > > Kotlin for now. > > > > > > Vladimir > > > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > no mistakes > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >
