Igniters, thank you for your feedback. I haven't seen any arguments against making abbreviation optional and not mandatory. So, could we update our wiki with code style to reflect our new vision on abbreviations?
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:01 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ivan > > if by conflict we mean arguing and fighting it is definitely should be > avoided, it never helps the community. > > But if we mean different opinions on details (variable namings, method > structure, etc), such different views are unavoidable and I find it is > perfectly ok that people with different background have different views. > The paramount thing here if we can solve such conflicts with a positive > outcome for all community and for the codebase. > > The good friend of mine reminded me some time ago that we all have a common > goal here: make the community bigger and this project better. If we always > remember that we are connected by a common interest but we admit each > contributor may have different preferences in coding and probably different > opinion. We may build up consensus sharing our arguments if it is really > needed, or these different opinions/priorities/preferences may co-exist. > > In a particular case, if reviewer's concerns are not major, another > reviewer can agree with your proposal. So it should be always considered > case-by-case, there is no silver bullet here. > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > вт, 23 окт. 2018 г., 11:32 Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > > > Igniters, > > > > I think it's easy to disable the code style abbreviation plugin option by > > switching off > > the checkbox on - File | Settings | Inspections | Apache Ignite | > Incorrect > > Java abbreviation usage. > > > > +1 to make abbreviation not mandatory, but I'd like to keep it for common > > variable names like `context = ctx`. > > > > On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 14:05 Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I also think that abbreviations should not be mandatory (point 3). > > > But what I am worrying about is a conflict resolution between a patch > > > submitter and a reviewer. > > > How to come to an agreement when one side is strictly for and another > > side > > > is strictly against > > > using abbreviations in some concrete case? > > > > > > вс, 21 окт. 2018 г. в 11:34, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > +1 for proposal 3. > > > > > > > > 1. I'm not sure we need to revisit all abbreviations as a lot of > people > > > get > > > > used to it. > > > > 2. I'm not sure multiword is always need to be fully named, sometimes > > it > > > > may be ok to abbreviate. > > > > 3. But I agree with abbreviations should not be mandatory. > > > > > > > > Abbreviated and short names like i,j,cp and etc. are good for simple > > > > methods and code blocks; for a fast demonstration of some idea, but > for > > > > complex enterprise level software it can hide meaning instead of > > clearly > > > > showing it. > > > > > > > > As a next step, I would like to propose to contribute an option to > > > disable > > > > abbreviation requirements for some cases in ignite-abbrev-plugin. > > > > > > > > сб, 20 окт. 2018 г. в 10:47, Zhenya <arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid>: > > > > > > > > > +1 for all proposals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > -- > > -- > > Maxim Muzafarov > > >
