On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov < sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Philippe>1/ I think you should put yourself at the place of the > contributor here. > Philippe>Why not say hello, thanks before discussing ? > > You are right. That makes sense. > > Philippe>2/ Discussion is great but In my opinion, discussion on the > naming of a > Philippe>static variable contributed by somebody who followed the way we > do it > Philippe>currently which conforms to standards is a bit too much. > > Even though contributions like PR171 are important, it is still required > to review them. > As current style might be not that well defined (== the way "we do it > currently" is not defined), it might make sense to define the style, > make sure PR conforms to it and then proceed with merge. > Ok but let's not discourage contributor. It is up to us once we have defined the style to merge the PR and change the naming. > > Philippe>Let's open if you want, a thread called 'Checkstyle rules in > JMeter' and > > I think it is better to add/enable/alter rules incrementally as required. > PR171 touches static finals. It is way easier to agree on the particular > rule > here, apply/enable the rule and merge the PR in. > No strong opinion on this: - LOG is okay for me - LOGGER is okay for me > > Vladimir > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
