I'm not following many Apache projects but in those that I do I don't see votes for code modifications very often. There is always some tension whenever somebody calls for a vote so personally I would prefer if could go without. I'm sure Vladimir did it with good intentions so that the discussion moves a bit faster unlike other times where people may be more passive.
Now regarding the proposal what I understand is that it solves a few problems without any significant loss of functionality so it seems like a reasonable change. One thing that I noticed is that before the plugin was mainly maintained by Julian while after the PR it is the duty of all of us since it becomes part of our code base. I think this is positive in the sense that it would alleviate some weight from the shoulders of Julian. One thing not so great is the modification of every file of the project (due to the removal of the last line) but it seems possible to avoid it if people have objections (I do not). Having said that I don't really know much about what HydromaticFileSetCheck was doing so I'm leaving the decision to those who are really familiar with it. On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 9:04 PM Vladimir Sitnikov < [email protected]> wrote: > Michael>I didn't interpret Jullian's -1 as a veto > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto > > A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a -1 > vote by a qualified voter. > > This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be overruled nor overridden by > anyone. > > Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their casters. > > Apparently that is a veto. What else could it be? However, it is "invalid > and has no weight". > > I'm open to new opinions, however, I'm sure I have provided enough reasons > to just commit the PR and move forward. > > Note: the only reason I started this discussion is I saw Julian's comments > in PR and in the JIRA, so I wanted to gather opinions. > Frankly speaking, I see nothing to discuss here. > > Here's a recent (created 25m ago) PR by Andrei: > https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/1632 > Apparently, it failed with > [ant:checkstyle] [ERROR] > > D:\a\calcite\calcite\core\src\main\java\org\apache\calcite\util\Sources.java:108: > Open parentheses exceed closes by 2 or more [HydromaticFileSet] > https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/1632/checks#step:4:309 > > Here's how the new error would look like after HydromaticFileSetCheck is > dropped: > > > The following files had format violations: > core/src/main/java/org/apache/calcite/util/Sources.java > @@ -105,7 +105,8 @@ > ····} > > ····private·UnsupportedOperationException·unsupported()·{ > > -······return·new·UnsupportedOperationException(String.format(Locale.ROOT, > +······return·new·UnsupportedOperationException( > +··········String.format(Locale.ROOT, > ··········"Invalid·operation·for·'%s'·protocol",·protocol())); > ····} > > I find this error to be way better than "by 2 or more". > > Vladimir >
