Based on the voting we should go with option 4? Two weeks passed without anybody joining so I guess folks are all happy with that or this just went unnoticed?
Let's give it time until the end of this week (Friday 12:00 UTC). Regards ________________________________________ From: Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 14:31 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Cassandra's code style and source code analysis NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Folks, Let me update the voting status and put together everything we have so far. We definitely need more votes to have a solid foundation for this change, so I encourage everyone to consider the options above and share them in this thread. Total for each applicable option: 4-th option -- 4 votes 3-rd option -- 3 votes 5-th option -- 1 vote 1-st option -- 0 votes 2-nd option -- 0 votes On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 22:06, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> 3. Total 5 groups, 2968 files to change >> >> ``` >> org.apache.cassandra.* >> [blank line] >> java.* >> [blank line] >> javax.* >> [blank line] >> all other imports >> [blank line] >> static all other imports >> ``` > > > > 3, then 5. > There's lots under com.*, net.*, org.* that is essentially the same as "all > other imports", what's the reason to separate those? > > My preference for 3 is simply that imports are by default collapsed, and if I > expand them it's the dependencies on other cassandra stuff I'm first > grokking. It's also our only imports that lead to cyclic dependencies (which > we're not good at).
