On Feb 21, 2012, at 2:38, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sorry but I lost you, at that point I don't understand what meaning we > want to attribute to the "checkstyle configuration can be overridden" > sentence. > > Do you mean that we add the suppressions file, in order to skip some > violations (i.e. signature too long of the default 80 char estimated > by the default rules) > > or > > committers can define their own config files? Both I hope. Gary > > TIA, > -Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Benedikt Ritter >> <b...@systemoutprintln.de>wrote: >> >>> Am 19.02.2012 22:57, schrieb Simone Tripodi: >>> >>> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects >>>>> override them if they want to. >>>>> >>>> >>> I think that is, what Gary meant in the first place ;-) >>> http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/**201202.mbox/%3C-* >>> *662605764588844473%**40unknownmsgid%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201202.mbox/%3C-662605764588844473%40unknownmsgid%3E> >> >> >> Yes indeed, thank you for pointing that out in the link above. I do not >> like to repeat myself. >> >> A advantage to an overridable default is that it is quicker to get a new >> project off and running without letting it go wild with yet another set of >> conventions. Right now, every time I want to work with one of the 20+ >> commons components (!= project), I have to create yet another IDE set of >> formatter settings, it's become intolerable and sadly ironic for a project >> named "Commons". >> >> Gary >> >>> >>> >>> To be honest, I'm really indifferent regarding what style to use. But I've >>> come to the conclusion, that coding style is an important thing for some of >>> you. I think the result of this discussion should be an easy way for >>> everyone to switch between components, even if some components are >>> developed by a few committers only (that is why I suggested to put the IDE >>> configuration files on the website). >>> >>> Regards, >>> Benedikt >>> >>> >>> >>>> that is much more than reasonable, we are on the same path now! :) >>>> >>>> -Simo >>>> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~**simonetripodi/<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/> >>>> http://simonetripodi.**livejournal.com/<http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/> >>>> http://twitter.com/**simonetripodi <http://twitter.com/simonetripodi> >>>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Ralph Goers<rgo...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Simone >>>>> Tripodi<simonetripodi@apache.**org<simonetrip...@apache.org>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> While I agree that checkstyle has to be consistent inside each >>>>>> component, so I would be +1 on having the plugin in the parent (with >>>>>> PMD and Findbugs as mentioned by Gary), I am still reluctant with >>>>>> adopting a general checkstyle *configuration* for all components, and >>>>>> I make you a sample: commons-ognl. >>>>>> >>>>>> main OGNL contributors have been olamy, mcucchiara, grobmeier and >>>>>> simonetripodi<http://**svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/** >>>>>> ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%**2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk<http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fcommons%2Fproper%2Fognl%2Ftrunk> >>>>>>> . >>>>>> We all (except grobmeier :P) like the mvn style (brought by >>>>>> checkstyle-plugin) and we are comfortable on working with it. No one >>>>>> else committed on OGNL. >>>>>> So please explain me why the PMC should "force" OGNL guys on adopting >>>>>> a different style in a component where just a small subset of commons >>>>>> people (mainly Struts guys) is interested. >>>>>> >>>>>> Concluding: PMD, findbugs and checkstyle by default: +1; deciding >>>>>> which style has to be applied: -1. Good practice are one thing, strict >>>>>> rules are different. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think it is reasonable to have Commons wide defaults but let projects >>>>> override them if they want to. >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>>>> --------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>> dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 >> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
