Vladimir, I have added some commits in https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2278 <https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2278> that fix the three points I raised.
Julian > On Nov 23, 2020, at 4:08 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Julian>I can’t tell whether you sincerely want my help. I’ll create a patch > fixing the three items. I’m fearful that you will take issue with what I > put in the patch and my time will be wasted. > > We can update javadocs at any time. If you want to make that simultaneously > with PR 2268, I'm ok. > Please prepare the patch and I can commit --amend it. You could commit > --amend on your own if you like that better. > > However, please use PR 2268 as a base branch (2273 is a bit stale) > > The only thing that bothers me is I do not want javadoc update to delay > nullness merge since it would increase merge conflicts. > > The changes are orthogonal after all. Nullness does not alter behaviour, > and javadoc clarifies behaviour. > Both of them are useful. > > Julia>Most people won’t read it, or remember it, and we should not expect > them too > > /develop/index.md is useful for those who contribute to Calcite for the > first time. > It is useful as a reference as well (e.g. commit message guidelines are > there). > > Julian>I think PolyNull needs to be explained in words each time it is used > in a public method. I’m happy to do that. > > I'm ok provided we do not add rules like "every polynull must be explained". > In my experience, PolyNull was easy to read and write after a day or so of > playing with it. > > Julian>When I challenged you about it last time you implied it was there by > accident (because you had recently rebased), and yet it’s still here. > > Last time you reverted that note from master with no comments. At least I > failed to understand why it was reverted. > I can commit "1.26 simplification warning" to master if you will. > > Vladimir
