I agree with the single commit approach to fix it all. TBH Javadocs
are a little bit messy as well, warnings on generating them,
incomplete, in a lot of cases obsolete or they do not reflect the code
anymore etc.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 09:44, bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I’d be fine with that, though I think if we want to start enforcing imports 
> we probably want to mass correct them first. It’s not like other style 
> requirements in that there should not be unintended consequences. A single 
> (huge) commit to standardise the orders and introduce a build-time check 
> would be fine IMO.
>
>
>
> I also don’t really think it is that important.
>
>
>
> From: Jacek Lewandowski <lewandowski.ja...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, 15 March 2022 at 05:18
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Updating our Code Contribution/Style Guide
>
> I do think that we should at least enforce the import order. What is now is a 
> complete mess and causes a lot of conflicts during rebasing / merging. 
> Perhaps we could start enforcing such rules only on modified files, this way 
> we could gradually go towards consistency... wdyt?
>
>
> - - -- --- ----- -------- -------------
> Jacek Lewandowski
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 1:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <djo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Benedict, I agree. We should not be rigid about applying any style. 
> stylechecks are meant to bring uniformity in the codebase. I assure you what 
> I am proposing is neither rigid nor curbs the ability to apply the rules 
> flexibly.
>
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2022, at 4:52 PM, bened...@apache.org wrote:
>
>
>
> I’m a strong -1 on strictly enforcing any style guide. It is there to help 
> shape contributions, review feedback and responding to said feedback. It can 
> also be used to setup IntelliJ’s code formatter to configure default 
> behaviours.
>
>
>
> It is not meant to be turned into a linter. Plenty of the rules are stated in 
> a flexible manner, so as to permit breaches where overall legibility and 
> aesthetics are improved.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Dinesh Joshi <djo...@apache.org>
> Date: Monday, 14 March 2022 at 23:44
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Updating our Code Contribution/Style Guide
>
> I am also in favor of updating the style guide. We should ideally have custom 
> checkstyle configuration that can ensure adherence to the style guide.
>
>
>
> I also don't think this is a contended topic. We want to explicitly codify 
> our current practices so new contributors have an easier time writing code.
>
>
>
> It is also important to note that the current codebase is not consistent 
> since it was written over a long period of time so it tends to confuse folks 
> who are working in different parts of the codebase. So this style guide would 
> be very helpful.
>
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2022, at 2:41 AM, bened...@apache.org wrote:
>
>
>
> Our style guide hasn’t been updated in about a decade, and I think it is 
> overdue some improvements that address some shortcomings as well as modern 
> facilities such as streams and lambdas.
>
>
>
> Most of this was put together for an effort Dinesh started a few years ago, 
> but has languished since, in part because the project has always seemed to 
> have other priorities. I figure there’s never a good time to raise a 
> contended topic, so here is my suggested update to contributor guidelines:
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sjw0crb0clQin2tMgZLt_ob4hYfLJYaU4lRX722htTo
>
>
>
> Many of these suggestions codify norms already widely employed, sometimes in 
> spite of the style guide, but some likely remain contentious. Some 
> potentially contentious things to draw your attention to:
>
>
>
> Deemphasis of getX() nomenclature, in favour of richer set of prefixes and 
> more succinct simple x() to retrieve where clear
> Avoid implementing methods, incl. equals(), hashCode() and toString(), unless 
> actually used
> Modified new-line rules for multi-line function calls
> External dependency rules (require DISCUSS thread before introducing)
>
>

Reply via email to