Turn it on at warning (or lower) level now, so people have some idea of the size of change to their current code.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 12:05 PM Miklosovic, Stefan < stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com> wrote: > Thank you Maxim for doing this. > > It is nice to see this effort materialized in a PR. > > I would wait until bigger chunks of work are committed to trunk (like > CEP-15) to not collide too much. I would say we can postpone doing this > until the actual 5.0 release, last weeks before it so we would not clash > with any work people would like to include in 5.0. This can go in anytime, > basically. > > Are people on the same page? > > Regards > > ________________________________________ > From: Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 19:46 > 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. > > > > > Hello everyone, > > You can find the changes here: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17925 > > While preparing the code style configuration for the Eclipse IDE, I > discovered that there was no easy way to have complex grouping options > for the set of packages. So we need to add extra blank lines between > each group of packages so that all the configurations for Eclipse, > NetBeans, IntelliJ IDEA and checkstyle are aligned. I should have > checked this earlier for sure, but I only did it for static imports > and some groups, my bad. The resultant configuration looks like this: > > java.* > [blank line] > javax.* > [blank line] > com.* > [blank line] > net.* > [blank line] > org.* > [blank line] > org.apache.cassandra.* > [blank line] > all other imports > [blank line] > static all other imports > > The pull request is here: > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/2108 > > The configuration-related changes are placed in a dedicated commit, so > it should be easy to make a review: > > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/2108/commits/84e292ddc9671a0be76ceb9304b2b9a051c2d52a > > ________________________________ > > Another important thing to mention is that the total amount of changes > for organising imports is really big (more than 2000 files!), so we > need to decide the right time to merge this PR. Although rebasing or > merging changes to development branches should become much easier > ("Accept local" + "Organize imports"), we still need to pay extra > attention here to minimise the impact on major patches for the next > release. > > On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 at 13:16, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Stefan, > > > > Thank you for bringing this topic up. I'll prepare the PR shortly with > > option 4, so everyone can take a look at the amount of changes. This > > does not force us to go exactly this path, but it may shed light on > > changes in general. > > > > What exactly we're planning to do in the PR: > > > > 1. Checkstyle AvoidStarImport rule, so no star imports will be allowed. > > 2. Checkstyle ImportOrder rule, for controlling the order. > > 3. The IDE code style configuration for Intellij IDEA, NetBeans, and > > Eclipse (it doesn't exist for Eclipse yet). > > 4. The import order according to option 4: > > > > ``` > > java.* > > javax.* > > [blank line] > > com.* > > net.* > > org.* > > [blank line] > > org.apache.cassandra.* > > [blank line] > > all other imports > > [blank line] > > static all other imports > > ``` > > > > > > > > On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 at 12:39, Miklosovic, Stefan > > <stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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). >
