I have no objection to the motivation. Just one thing is the PR changed many files, I guess we will get many conflicts there. With a few conflicts, we can handle them confidently and submit them directly to branches. If there are many conflicts, I would suggest creating PR direct to the branch so that we can have more eyes on the change.
Regards, Penghui On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:56 AM Neng Lu <freen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Not all modules enable the checkstyle. > I think we need to make sure the behavior is consistent across all modules. > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 9:42 AM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi Pulsar Community, > > > > I notice that we have had several recent PRs adding checkstyle to more > > of our modules: > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13409 > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13413 > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13343 > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13284 > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13676 > > > > The above is an incomplete list. > > > > In order to minimize divergence for release branches and master, I > > think we should cherry-pick all of these PRs to our active release > > branches, and I propose that future CheckStyle PRs be cherry-picked to > > active branches when they're merged to master. > > > > At the time of writing this email, none of the above PRs have been > > cherry-picked yet. > > > > Let me know what you think. I am not able to do any cherry picking > > this week, but I might be able to help out on this task next week. > > > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > > -- > Best Regards, > Neng >
