Two cents: While we're at it, we could consider enforcing formatting as well (https://github.com/google/google-java-format). That's a bigger change though, and I don't think it has checkstyle integration or anything like that.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:54 PM Dan Halperin <[email protected]> wrote: > yeah I think that we would be SO MUCH better off if we worked with an > out-of-the-box IDE. We don't even distribute an IntelliJ/Eclipse config > file right now, and I'd like to not have to. > > But, ugh, it will mess up ongoing PRs. I guess committers could fix them in > merge, or we could just make proposers rebase. (Since committers are most > proposers, probably little harm in the latter). > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Jesse Anderson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Please. That's the one that always trips me up. > > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 4:10 PM Ben Chambers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > When Beam was contributed it inherited an import order [1] that was > > pretty > > > arbitrary. We've added org.apache.beam [2], but continue to use this > > > ordering. > > > > > > Both Eclipse and IntelliJ default to grouping imports into alphabetic > > > order. I think it would simplify development if we switched our > > checkstyle > > > ordering to agree with these IDEs. This also removes special treatment > > for > > > specific packages. > > > > > > If people agree, I'll send out a PR that changes the checkstyle > > > configuration and runs IntelliJ's sort-imports on the existing files. > > > > > > -- Ben > > > > > > [1] > > > org.apache.beam,com.google,android,com,io,Jama,junit,net, > > org,sun,java,javax > > > [2] com.google,android,com,io,Jama,junit,net,org,sun,java,javax > > > > > >
