Those modules are fine, they are rarely touched any way. On Jul 4, 2017 8:57 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-07-04 16:50 GMT+02:00 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com>: > > It is fine to me if we do modules by modules and packages by packages in > > bookkeeper-server. We can keep the changes smaller for reviews and easier > > to merge. > > I see in the issue and PR > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/231 that he is adding CS to > every maven module except from bookkeeper-server > maybe it is a good starting point. > I have written a comment in order to invite him to join the list > > I am also OK with applying such changes to bookkeeper-server one > package at a time > > -- Enrico > > > > > Also, it might be good to also discuss on the issue to keep David updated > > if he is not in the dev@ list. > > > > Sijie > > > > On Jul 4, 2017 6:43 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > as you can see from github emails there is an ongoing proposal to add > > "checkstyle" plugin to BookKeeper build. > > I am really in favour of this change. It is already used in > > DistributedLog and it will ease the review, preventing us from writing > > comments for minor typos. > > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/230 > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/230 > > > > Thanks to David (I hope he is subscribed to this list) we will be able > > to add this kind of support soon. > > > > My concern is that this change will make us change all big pull requests. > > > > We should decide when to get checkstyle in: > > 1) as soon as possible (after review of the patch) > > 2) before 4.5 release, as last step > > 3) after merging biggest changes (Twitter changes and Salesforce > > changes) which are waiting for review/merge > > 4) defer to the start of 4.6 > > > > My proposal is to defer to the start of 4.6, the only problem is that > > David will be doing a big effort to keep the patch in synch with the > > actual master > > > > -- Enrico >
