I agree and don't think that it is possible to add good/valuable comments to all the classes in a reasonable time frame. I would stage this effort to add comments lazily as we touch components -or- as people are motivated to add comments. We can add exclusions for this check per file (might be a long list though ;)).
But as I see it, there is consensus about the value of this rule for new code. There we can strictly enforce it. On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > I don't think a "let add comments to everything" effort gives us good > comments, actually. It just gives us checkmark comments that make the rules > pass. > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sure, I don't expect it to be free. > > But everybody should be aware of the cost of adding this code style, > i.e., > > spending a huge amount of time on reformatting and documenting code. > > > > Alternatively, we could drop the JavaDocs rule and make the transition > > significantly cheaper. > > > > 2015-10-22 15:24 GMT+02:00 Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org>: > > > > > There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch and code style. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think we have to document all these classes. Code Style doesn't > come > > > > for free :) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > Any ideas how to deal with the mandatory JavaDoc rule for existing > > > code? > > > > > Just adding empty headers to make the checkstyle pass or start a > > > serious > > > > > effort to add the missing docs? > > > > > > > > > > 2015-10-21 13:31 GMT+02:00 Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > >> Agreed. That's the reason why I am in favor of using vanilla > Google > > > code > > > > >> style. > > > > >> > > > > >> On 10/21/2015 12:31 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote: > > > > >> > We started out originally with mixed tab/spaces, but it ended up > > > with > > > > >> > people mixing spaces and tabs arbitrarily, and there is little > way > > > to > > > > >> > enforce Matthias' specific suggestion via checkstyle. > > > > >> > That's why we dropped spaces alltogether... > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Gyula Fóra < > > gyula.f...@gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I think the nice thing about a common codestyle is that > everyone > > > can > > > > set > > > > >> >> the template in the IDE and use the formatting commands. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Matthias's suggestion makes this practically impossible so -1 > for > > > > mixed > > > > >> >> tabs/spaces from my side. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2015. > okt. > > > > 21., > > > > >> Sze, > > > > >> >> 11:46): > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >>> I actually like tabs a lot, however, in a "mixed" style > together > > > > with > > > > >> >>> spaces. Example: > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> myVar.callMethod(param1, // many more > > > > >> >>> .................paramX); // the dots mark space > > indention > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> indenting "paramX" with tabs does not give nice aliment. Not > > sure > > > if > > > > >> >>> this would be a feasible compromise to keeps tabs in general, > > but > > > > use > > > > >> >>> space for cases as above. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> If this in no feasible compromise, I would prefer space to get > > the > > > > >> >>> correct indention in examples as above. Even if this result > in a > > > > >> >>> complete reformatting of the whole code. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> Why this? Everybody can set this in it's IDE/editor as he/she > > > > wishes... > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>>>> If we keep tabs, we will have to specify the line length > > > relative > > > > to > > > > >> a > > > > >> >>> tab > > > > >> >>>>> size (like 4). > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> -Matthias > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> On 10/21/2015 11:06 AM, Ufuk Celebi wrote: > > > > >> >>>> To summarize up to this point: > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> - All are in favour of Google check style (with the following > > > > possible > > > > >> >>>> exceptions) > > > > >> >>>> - Proposed exceptions so far: > > > > >> >>>> * Specific line length 100 vs. 120 characters > > > > >> >>>> * Keep tabs instead converting to spaces (this would > > translate > > > to > > > > >> >>>> skipping/coming up with some indentation rules as well) > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> If we keep tabs, we will have to specify the line length > > relative > > > > to a > > > > >> >>> tab > > > > >> >>>> size (like 4). > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> Let’s keep the discussion going a little longer. I think it > has > > > > >> >> proceeded > > > > >> >>>> in a very reasonable manner so far. Thanks for this! > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> – Ufuk > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Fabian Hueske < > > > fhue...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>>> Thanks Max for checking the modifications by the Google code > > > > style. > > > > >> >>>>> It is very good to know, that the impact on the code base > > would > > > > not > > > > >> be > > > > >> >>> too > > > > >> >>>>> massive. If the Google code style would have touched almost > > > every > > > > >> >> line, > > > > >> >>> I > > > > >> >>>>> would have been in favor of converting to spaces. However, > > your > > > > >> >>> assessment > > > > >> >>>>> is a strong argument to continue with tabs, IMO. > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> Regarding the line length limit, I personally find 100 chars > > too > > > > >> >> narrow > > > > >> >>> but > > > > >> >>>>> would be +1 for having a limit. > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> +1 for discussing the Scala style in a separate thread. > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> Fabian > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> 2015-10-20 18:12 GMT+02:00 Maximilian Michels < > m...@apache.org > > >: > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> I'm a little less excited about this. You might not be > aware > > > but, > > > > >> for > > > > >> >>>>>> a large portion of the source code, we already follow the > > > Google > > > > >> >> style > > > > >> >>>>>> guide. The main changes will be tabs->spaces and 80/100 > > > > characters > > > > >> >>>>>> line limit. > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> Out of curiosity, I ran the official Google Style > Checkstyle > > > > >> >>>>>> configuration to confirm my suspicion: > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/blob/master/src/main/resources/google_checks.xml > > > > >> >>>>>> The changes are very little if we turn off line length > limit > > > and > > > > >> >>>>>> tabs-to-spaces conversion. > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> There are some things I really like about the Google style, > > > e.g. > > > > >> >> every > > > > >> >>>>>> class has to have a JavaDoc and spaces after keywords > (can't > > > > stand > > > > >> if > > > > >> >>>>>> there aren't any). I'm not sure if we should change tabs to > > > > spaces, > > > > >> >>>>>> because it means touching almost every single line of code. > > > > However, > > > > >> >>>>>> if we keep the tabs, we cannot make use of the different > > > > indention > > > > >> >> for > > > > >> >>>>>> case statements or wrapped lines...maybe that's a > compromise > > we > > > > can > > > > >> >>>>>> live with. > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> If we introduce the Google Style for Java, will we also > > impose > > > a > > > > >> >>>>>> stricter style check for Scala? IMHO the line length is the > > > > >> strictest > > > > >> >>>>>> part of the Scala Checkstyle. > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Henry Saputra < > > > > >> >>> henry.sapu...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>> 1) yes. Been dancing this issue for a while. Let's pull > the > > > > >> trigger. > > > > >> >>>>> Did > > > > >> >>>>>>> the exercise with Tachyon while back and did help > > readability > > > > and > > > > >> >>>>>>> homogeneity of code. > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>> 2) +1 for Google Java style with documented exceptions and > > > > >> >> explanation > > > > >> >>>>> on > > > > >> >>>>>>> why. > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org > > > > > > 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 > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
