Am 18.02.2012 15:25, schrieb Ralph Goers:
On Feb 18, 2012, at 3:20 AM, Luc Maisonobe<luc.maison...@free.fr> wrote:
Le 17/02/2012 23:30, Ralph Goers a écrit :
On Feb 17, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
That seems like way too much effort for very little benefit. In fact,
when I created the checkstyle configuration I started from the one used by
Commons Configuration and then tweaked it to shut up a bunch of the
"errors" I didn't care about and that seemed to have been the convention of
the existing code base. I'd prefer that all of commons use the same
checkstyle configuration.
+1, that would be great, we could put it in the parent POM and be done with
it once and for all.
Are we sure all components use the same style ?
The checkstyle.xml file for [math] origin has evolved its own way,
partly when the mantissa library has been merged. I am pretty sure it is
not compatible with other ones.
That was kind of the point for using a single checkstyle config. Why should the
various projects use different rules?
For instance, [configuration] has a different coding style than [lang].
Personally, I do not prefer one format over the other. I am +1 for a
commons wide checkstyle policy. However, doing the reformatting is
probably a pain.
+1 to a common(s) set of reports, too.
Oliver
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
