Hi @vinoyang thanks for bringing this to discussion. I feel it would be less disruptive to clean up code as part of individual classes being touched for a specific goal rather than code cleanup being the actual goal. This would narrow the touch point and ensure test coverage (both unit and integration tests) catches any accidental/unintentional changes. Also it would give chance to change any documentation quoting/referencing that code. Wanted to share my personal opinion.
Thanks, Sudha On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:36 AM Shiyan Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > The clean-up work can actually be split by modules. > > Though it is generally a good practice to follow, my concern is the > clean-up is likely to cause conflicts with some on-going changes. If I may > suggest, the dedicated clean-up tasks should avoid > - modules that are undergoing multiple feature changes/PRs > - modules that are planned to have major refactoring due to design changes > (since clean-up can be done altogether during refactoring) > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:17 AM Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Not sure if I fully agree with sweeping statements being made. But, +1 > for > > structuring this work via Jiras and having some committer “accept” the > > issue first. Some of these tend to be subjective and we do need to make > > different tradeoffs. > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:28 AM vino yang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Pratyaksh, > > > > > > Thanks for your thought. > > > > > > Let's listen to others' comments. If there is no objection, we will > > follow > > > this way. > > > > > > Best, > > > Vino > > > > > > > > > Pratyaksh Sharma <[email protected]> 于2020年1月21日周二 下午4:56写道： > > > > > > > Hi Vino, > > > > > > > > Big +1 for this initiative. I have done this code cleanup for test > > > classes > > > > in the past and strongly feel there is a need to do the same at other > > > > places as well. I would definitely like to volunteer for this. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:52 PM vino yang <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > > > Currently, the code quality of some Hudi module is not very well. > As > > > many > > > > > developers have seen, the Intellij IDEA has shown many intellisense > > > about > > > > > cleanup and improvement. The community does not object to doing the > > > > cleanup > > > > > and improvement work and the work has been started via some direct > > > > "minor" > > > > > PRs by some volunteers. The current way is unorganized and hard to > > > > manage. > > > > > For tracking this work, I prefer to manage this work with the Jira > > > issue. > > > > > We can create an umbrella issue. Then, split the work into several > > > > > subtasks. > > > > > > > > > > Since those "bad smell" lays anywhere in the whole project. It's > > > > difficult > > > > > to give a standard to split the subtasks. For example, some files > > have > > > a > > > > > lot while some modules have few. So I suggest the standard would > > depend > > > > on > > > > > the volume of the changes. Before working, any subtask should find > a > > > > > committer as a mentor who would judge and approve the scope is > > > suitable. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > Any comments and suggestions would be appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Vino > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
