Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Uwe Barthel wrote: > +1 for checkstyle, -1 for any IDE depending files. Fully agreed, if IDE dependenant files are somehow required, or important, for the build. Apart from that: Let's not be overly dogmatic. If such files are out of the

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

True, Eclipse then creates a .checkstyle file in the project root which we can svn/git ignore. Gary On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Actually, the checkstyle.xml can be imported into both Eclipse and > IntelliJ. I’m not sure about other IDEs. >

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

Actually, the checkstyle.xml can be imported into both Eclipse and IntelliJ. I’m not sure about other IDEs. Ralph > On Jun 27, 2016, at 9:33 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Uwe Barthel wrote: > >> +1 >> >> If you do

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Uwe Barthel wrote: > +1 > > If you do all of them, then we should also add the agreed >> checkstyle.xml or equivalent code style file, so that it's easy to >> keep compliance. >> > > +1 for checkstyle, -1 for any IDE depending files. Folks

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

+1 If you do all of them, then we should also add the agreed checkstyle.xml or equivalent code style file, so that it's easy to keep compliance. +1 for checkstyle, -1 for any IDE depending files. -- barthel - To

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > Your reading and mine are a bit different. Stephen Colebourne wanted > Fraction kept in Commons Lang as he felt users would find more value in it > there because Commons Math is too specialized. I read Gary’s

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

Your reading and mine are a bit different. Stephen Colebourne wanted Fraction kept in Commons Lang as he felt users would find more value in it there because Commons Math is too specialized. I read Gary’s comment as a rebuttal to the person who said Fraction was “foundational” for Commons Math.

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:34:47 -0500, Brent Worden wrote: One previous thread on the subject: http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku The final sentence of that thread: "So I do not see Fraction as the foundation for anything really. It stands on its own nicely IMO." What more adequate

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

Hi Jochen, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles > wrote: > >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"? >> Should one be dropped in favour of the other? > > *Can* we drop either, while maintaining

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

And here is another thread from the [lang] perspective: http://markmail.org/message/z6tgpsavegsf2rmx Brent On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Brent Worden wrote: > One previous thread on the subject: > http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku > > > Brent > > On Mon,

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

One previous thread on the subject: http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku Brent On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brent Worden wrote: > Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this very > topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this very topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the reasoning for keeping both at that time. I will try sifting through the archives to find the thread if I find time. Brent On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Ralph

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > +1 go for it. I'm in the unified code style camp. That's why I reformatted > the whole code base of BeanUtils2 a while back. > +1 from me too. Niall > > Kristian Rosenvold schrieb am Mo.,

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann > wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles wrote: > >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"? >> Should one be dropped in favour of the

Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles wrote: > Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package > "o.a.c.m.fraction"? > Should one be dropped in favour of the other? *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC? Sorry, Jochen -- The next time you hear:

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

+1 if the code is messy or inconsistent, -0 if it's already OK. Personally I wouldn't do the whole code, just tidy in a separate commit per file before editing it. If you do all of them, then we should also add the agreed checkstyle.xml or equivalent code style file, so that it's easy to keep

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

On Jun 27, 2016 1:09 AM, "Kristian Rosenvold" wrote: > > This has probably been discussed a million times before, so I'll keep > it short. commons-io has wonderfully inconsistent code style even > within individual code files. > > Once the move to git completes, I'd like to

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

> On Jun 27, 2016, at 3:18 AM, sebb wrote: > > On 27 June 2016 at 09:09, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: >> This has probably been discussed a million times before, so I'll keep >> it short. commons-io has wonderfully inconsistent code style even >> within

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

We reformat and reorganize all the time in log4j and we've never lost track of where things came from. Maybe git is smarter than svn about this? On 27 June 2016 at 05:18, sebb wrote: > On 27 June 2016 at 09:09, Kristian Rosenvold > wrote: > > This has

Re: Is JIRA down?

Oh cool, thanks for the info. On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:46 AM, sebb wrote: > Seems OK now. > > In future, please note that system problems are usually noted here: > > http://status.apache.org/ > > Note that have been ongoing temporary JIRA connectivity issues. > So it's always

回复:Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

hi, i am interested in the refactor the code , i want to know what can i do you for you ,expect your reply . thanks a lot . At 2016-06-27 20:10:20, "Benedikt Ritter" wrote: >+1 go for it. I'm in the unified code style camp. That's why I reformatted >the whole code base

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

+1 go for it. I'm in the unified code style camp. That's why I reformatted the whole code base of BeanUtils2 a while back. Kristian Rosenvold schrieb am Mo., 27. Juni 2016 um 13:21: > 2016-06-27 12:18 GMT+02:00 sebb : > > This causes lots of grief when

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

2016-06-27 12:18 GMT+02:00 sebb : > This causes lots of grief when trying to track where a particular > section of code was introduced. Tooling has moved on, I'm really not sure this argument is particularly relevant for a git repository. If I want to track provenance I'd use

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:18:19 +0100, sebb wrote: On 27 June 2016 at 09:09, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: This has probably been discussed a million times before, so I'll keep it short. commons-io has wonderfully inconsistent code style even within individual code files.

Re: [VOTE] New component: Standard math functions

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 03:55:35 + (UTC), venkatesha m wrote: Does this use Java 8? What is "this"? If you want to discuss (rather than vote), please start a new thread. Thank you, Gilles On Monday, 27 June 2016 2:20 AM, Gilles wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun

Re: Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

On 27 June 2016 at 09:09, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: > This has probably been discussed a million times before, so I'll keep > it short. commons-io has wonderfully inconsistent code style even > within individual code files. > > Once the move to git completes, I'd like to

Early Access builds of JDK 8u112 b01, JDK 9 b124 are available on java.net

Hi Benedikt, Early Access b124 for JDK 9 is available on java.net, summary of changes are listed here . Early Access b123 (#5178) for JDK 9 with Project Jigsaw

Reformatting commons-io to single code style ?

This has probably been discussed a million times before, so I'll keep it short. commons-io has wonderfully inconsistent code style even within individual code files. Once the move to git completes, I'd like to reformat the entire code base (including javadoc) to a single style. I don't really