A live meeting is a good idea. Email discussions tend to make people seem more dogmatic than they really are, because everyone focuses on the 10% of the argument they disagree with, rather than the 90% they agree with.
I will endeavor to attend. Julian > On Dec 19, 2019, at 12:06 PM, Kevin Risden <kris...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> 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 >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>
