> > 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? I think this is a good idea to try. I think a few other projects do this. Aligning schedules and stuff is always hard, but willing to try to attend a meeting. Kevin Risden On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 8:27 AM Stamatis Zampetakis <zabe...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >
