Hi Vladimir, 1/ I think you should put yourself at the place of the contributor here. Why not say hello, thanks before discussing ?
My note is about the first reaction by sebb here and the reply on another PR by same contributor the same day: - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59197#c2 For recap: https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html 1. *Be empathetic <https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html#endnotes>, welcoming, friendly, and patient.* We work together to resolve conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to act in an empathetic fashion. We may all experience some frustration from time to time, but we do not allow frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We should be respectful when dealing with other community members as well as with people outside our community. 2/ Discussion is great but In my opinion, discussion on the naming of a static variable contributed by somebody who followed the way we do it currently which conforms to standards is a bit too much. Let's open if you want, a thread called 'Checkstyle rules in JMeter' and discuss there. 3/ +1 for checkstyle rules, this way we will stop discussing this and concentrate on all other subjects. Regards Philippe On Friday, March 18, 2016, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Philippe>- LOG (Upper Case) for static is the usual policy that is > applied by all > Philippe> of us since few time > > In my opinion, log/logger is better treated as exception from "static > final upper case" policy. > It is used more often than other kind of static finals => it might > deserve some exceptional casing rule. > > Philippe> - and if we don't like it, why just not merge it and rename > the > Philippe> variable ? > > I think we'd better agree on the style first, then merge. > "log vs LOG vs LOGGER" might indeed be important, as it is better to > follow the same style everywhere. > > Philippe> why just not merge > > It makes sense to activate relevant checkstyle rule, so invalid names > could no longer get in. > > Philippe>do you think this kind of big discussion for a Variable > naming without a > > I does not look like a big discussion yet. > We are just solving one of the two hard things in Computer Science (see > [1]) > > [1] http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html > > Vladimir >
