In the long run, the rules will (hopefully) save me work following up
fixing bad javadocs and trivial warnings.


--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Eric Newton <eric.new...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +0
>
> I don't think it's worth the disruption, but I don't mind if you're going
> to do all the work.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, if you're using Eclipse to do the auto-format, please check for
> > trailing white-space on otherwise empty javadoc lines.
> >
> > If you automate this in some fashion outside of Eclipse (because other
> > people may prefer other editors), this would be a useful script to add
> to a
> > top-level dev-tools folder.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:36 PM, David Medinets <david.medin...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Are you automating the process so that you can re-apply the same steps
> > > in one year?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > Can do. It's a bit more work for me, because I have to repeat the
> same
> > > > actions over and over again, but if it helps history look a little
> > > cleaner,
> > > > i can do it, and just stick to -sours and repeat for the next
> branch..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Please do not do formatting during merge conflict resolution, and
> make
> > > >> those be separate commits.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > ack'ed
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > John Vines wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> +1
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Christopher<ctubb...@apache.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>  To make it easier to apply some minimal checkstyle rules for
> > > >> >>> ACCUMULO-3451,
> > > >> >>> I'm announcing my intentions to do a full, one-time, auto-format
> > and
> > > >> >>> organize imports on all our supported branches (1.5, 1.6, and
> > > master)
> > > >> to
> > > >> >>> bring us up to some degree of compliance with our agreed-upon
> > > >> formatting
> > > >> >>> standards.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Benefits:
> > > >> >>> To have additional checks, in particular against javadoc
> problems
> > > and
> > > >> >>> other
> > > >> >>> common trivial warnings in the build.
> > > >> >>> To ensure less divergence from our agreed-upon formatting
> > standards.
> > > >> >>> Formatting first makes it much less tedious and easier on me to
> > add
> > > >> these
> > > >> >>> checks to the build.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Issues I've considered:
> > > >> >>> I will deal with all the merge conflicts.
> > > >> >>> I will ignore generated thrift code.
> > > >> >>> Conflicts with new code in people's branches should be minimal
> > (and
> > > >> >>> easily
> > > >> >>> resolved by formatting according to our standards).
> > > >> >>> Regarding concerns about history tracking, in general, each
> format
> > > >> change
> > > >> >>> is small, but they are numerous. So, the impact on tracking
> > history
> > > >> >>> should
> > > >> >>> be very minimal (you'll see things like a brace moved to the
> same
> > > line
> > > >> as
> > > >> >>> the else statement it is associated with... stuff that won't
> > > generally
> > > >> >>> affect your ability to debug).
> > > >> >>> I'll also do a "format only" commit, separately from any
> > substantive
> > > >> >>> changes regarding the rule changes, so the mass formatting
> change
> > > will
> > > >> >>> happen in one place, and it will also be easy to revert, if
> > > absolutely
> > > >> >>> necessary.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> I'll give this 24 hours (it can be reverted if somebody objects
> > > after
> > > >> >>> that).
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> --
> > > >> >>> Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > >> >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to