> As discussed on IRC yesterday there should be consistency and there is an > option to autofix with rubocop if the style is changed to change existing > code with less effort.
TL;DR - Let's keep Rubocop away from rockethash thing. What the consistency gives us? We all know there are two ways and both will work. Let's avoid big bangs that will make cherry picking harder and just let's slowly improve as the time goes on. I see no point in changing a single line of code from old to new syntax just for that. We should only change it when changing logic. Even if Rubocop is able to check only for changed lines, I won't like that at all. I do not want to switch my brain between Smart Proxy and Foreman Core codebases. Both ways should work and be accepted. Let's only make the old syntax preferable when reviewing and that's it. I think we implemented Rubocop far beyond what's reasonable point. It make sense for dangerous constructs, but not in this case (and few others). -- Later, Lukas #lzap Zapletal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
