+1 for introducing a stricter style guide and starting with the Google style.
Should we have a separate discussion whether we take the Google style guide vanilla, or whether we make slight adjustments? On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > That's how I've understood Ufuk's mail. Everyone should also be aware that > the Google code style limits the number characters per line to either 80 or > 100. But I guess that everyone will read it himself. > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Just checking: Do we take Google's style guide as is, including spaces > > instead of tabs? I like the spaces, but that will make things hard... > > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > +1 for both :) > > > > > > Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2015. okt. > 20., > > K, > > > 14:58): > > > > > > > I like the idea to have a bit stricter code style which will increase > > > code > > > > maintainability and makes it easier for people to go through the > code. > > > > Furthermore, it will relieve us from code style comments while > > reviewing > > > > PRs which can be quite cumbersome. > > > > > > > > Personally, I like the Google code style. Thus, +1 for both points. > > > > > > > > Just a remark: We should discuss the same for Flink's Scala style at > > some > > > > point. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Márton Balassi < > > > balassi.mar...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 for both > > > > > > > > > > As we are planning to restructure the maven projects at the point > > that > > > > > breaks the PRs anyway, so going on step further at this point in > time > > > is > > > > > reasonable for me. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > big +1 for both! > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/20/2015 02:31 PM, Ufuk Celebi wrote: > > > > > > > DISCLAIMER: This is not my personal idea, but a community > > > discussion > > > > > from > > > > > > > some time ago. Don't kill the messenger. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In March we were discussing issues with heterogeneity of the > code > > > > [1]. > > > > > > The > > > > > > > summary is that we had a consensus to enforce a stricter code > > style > > > > on > > > > > > our > > > > > > > Java code base in order to make it easier to switch between > > > projects > > > > > and > > > > > > to > > > > > > > have clear rules for new contributions. The main proposal in > the > > > last > > > > > > > discussion was to go with Google's Java code style. Not all > were > > > > fully > > > > > > > satisfied with this, but still everyone agreed on some kind of > > > style. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the upcoming 0.10 release is a good point to finally go > > > > through > > > > > > > with these changes (right after the release/branch-off). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose to go with Google's Java code style [2] as proposed > > > > earlier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PROs: > > > > > > > - Clear style guide available > > > > > > > - Tooling like checkstyle rules, IDE plugins already available > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONs: > > > > > > > - Fully breaks our current style > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The main problem with this will be open pull requests, which > will > > > be > > > > > > harder > > > > > > > to merge after all the changes. On the other hand, should pull > > > > requests > > > > > > > that have been open for a long time block this? Most of the > > > important > > > > > > > changes will be merged for the release anyways. I think in the > > long > > > > run > > > > > > we > > > > > > > will gain more than we loose by this (more homogenous code, > clear > > > > > rules). > > > > > > > And it is questionable whether we will ever be able to do such > a > > > > change > > > > > > in > > > > > > > the future if we cannot do it now. The project will most likely > > > grow > > > > > and > > > > > > > attract more contributors, at which point it will be even > harder > > to > > > > do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please make sure to answer the following points in the > > discussion: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Are you (still) in favour of enforcing stricter rules on the > > > Java > > > > > > > codebase? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If yes, would you be OK with the Google's Java code style? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > – Ufuk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flink-dev/201503.mbox/%3ccanc1h_von0b5omnwzxchtyzwhakeghbzvquyk7s9o2a36b8...@mail.gmail.com%3e > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
