>>>>the
>>>>>web page. For example, the section 'Generating Patches' in the home (
>>>>>http://giraph.apache.org) would be good place.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Hyunsik Choi
>>>>>
>>>>
>http://giraph.apache.org) would be good place.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Hyunsik Choi
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Alessandro Presta
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we currently have IDE c
I don't think we currently have IDE configurations in the repo. We
>>>>should
>>>> do that. I can see how that works for IntelliJ IDEA. Anyone using
>>>>Eclipse?
>>>>
>>>> On 7/1/12 11:06 PM, "Hyunsik Choi" wrote:
>>
I don't think we currently have IDE configurations in the repo. We
>>>should
>>> do that. I can see how that works for IntelliJ IDEA. Anyone using
>>>Eclipse?
>>>
>>> On 7/1/12 11:06 PM, "Hyunsik Choi" wrote:
>>>
>>> >
ould
>> do that. I can see how that works for IntelliJ IDEA. Anyone using
>>Eclipse?
>>
>> On 7/1/12 11:06 PM, "Hyunsik Choi" wrote:
>>
>> >That seems a great idea. In addition to the order of imports, it will
>>be
>> >better if all co
think we currently have IDE configurations in the repo. We should
> do that. I can see how that works for IntelliJ IDEA. Anyone using Eclipse?
>
> On 7/1/12 11:06 PM, "Hyunsik Choi" wrote:
>
> >That seems a great idea. In addition to the order of imports, it will be
>
I don't think we currently have IDE configurations in the repo. We should
do that. I can see how that works for IntelliJ IDEA. Anyone using Eclipse?
On 7/1/12 11:06 PM, "Hyunsik Choi" wrote:
>That seems a great idea. In addition to the order of imports, it will be
>
That seems a great idea. In addition to the order of imports, it will be
better if all coding convention is included in both IDE configurations.
--
Hyunsik Choi
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Avery Ching wrote:
> I think uniformity is good. I think as long as IDE's support our rul
I think uniformity is good. I think as long as IDE's support our rules
(as Alessandro mentioned) this can only be better. We can continue this
discussion per GIRAPH-230.
Avery
On 7/1/12 8:35 AM, Alessandro Presta wrote:
I think we should strive to make the signal-to-noise ratio of our diffs
I think we should strive to make the signal-to-noise ratio of our diffs as
high as possible, while at the same time enforce a certain level of
uniformity.
Besides, we already have a bunch of conventions for imports in
checkstyle.xml, so this is straightforward.
IDEA (and I'm pretty sure Eclipse too
My thought is that after reviewing a lot of patches, I honestly don't
care about the imports... If your IDE can do something sensible with
them, that's great. But they have no effect on the code or add any
extra effort to the code reviews.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Avery Ching wrote:
>
It's not silly at all. I suggest that we add some checkstyle rules for
enforcing our convention as well.
http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_imports.html
I like AvoidStarImport, RedundantImport, UnusedImports, and (most
related to this question) ImportOrder.
Any thoughts?
Avery
On 6/
It's not silly at all. I suggest that we add some checkstyle rules for
enforcing our convention as well.
http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_imports.html
I like AvoidStarImport, RedundantImport, UnusedImports, and (most
related to this question) ImportOrder.
Any thoughts?
Avery
On 6/
Hi all,
Kind of a silly concern, but nevertheless:
IntelliJ IDEA does a great job at optimizing imports for you. While doing so,
it also insists in reorganizing them following some logic.
Since it's not nice to have a patch dirtied by imports reordering every time a
different person touches a c
14 matches
Mail list logo
