Stamatis>I mean that there are a few people who are a bit skeptical with the change Stamatis>so it seems that more convincing elements are needed.
There's no way to convince people who do not want to analyze Checkstyle / build configuration themselves. Everybody was happy with Maven, and there was lots of skepticism re Gradle. Is Gradle much better for Calcite than Maven? Of course, it is. Should we allow "skepticism alone" to be enough to block the changes? I don't think so. The way to proceed here is to assume the change is good, apply it, and see how it goes. In an extremely unlike case, we could roll back the change, and it is trivial. Stamatis>so it seems that more convincing elements are needed. Just in case someone failed to notice: * The proposed change identifies (and fixes) issues with the existing codebase. For instance, there existed invalid CALCITE- hyperlinks, and there existed misplaced parenthesis * The proposed change enables automatic (!) fixes for the violations (@override, @test, parenthesis, newline in string, <p>) * The violation messages become much easier to understand, especially when browsing the CI results: violation is rendered as diff, so it does not require to open the source code to understand the failure * The proposed change unlocks Checkstyle upgrade * Checkstyle configuration becomes easier to load to the IDE Isn't that "convincing enough"? It can't be like that, and the only reason I see is "nobody wants to dig into Checkstyle mess", so everybody is conservative. Vladimir
