Doing a spotlessApply on my feature branch before rebasing didn't help bring down the number of conflicts.
I came up with this sequence of steps to rebase a feature branch on develop that avoids the need to manually resolve conflicts with the formatting changes. The trick here is to pick up *just* the formatting changes in one of the steps, and then reject any formatting changes that conflict with my changes. #Rebase onto the commit before the spotless change. Resolve conflicts if any git rebase 56917a26a8916b83f0cec6e85285b5040ff66ee6 #Rebase onto the spotless change, automatically throwing away the formatting changes if they conflict. git rebase -Xtheirs c2319bb7a6201d5ae82ecb0fe23a1e3b8072c2e1 #Rebase onto the rest of develop. Resolve conflicts if any. git rebase origin/develop #Apply formatting ./gradlew geode-core:spotlessApply -Dan On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Jared Stewart <jstew...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Try this commit hash instead: d0175ec5aa8acf1b34ece3183fe03e9874450cbb > (from feature/spotlessPlugin). > > > > On Oct 21, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > FYI, feeb5c98402881156b34e222c58ce15c71a4fca7 doesn't exist in the > Apache > > git repo. > > > > Is there a way to reformat a branch and then rebase on develop to > minimize > > conflicts? > > > > -Kirk > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jared Stewart <jstew...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > >> Fantastic, thanks for merging this in Mark. For anyone with outstanding > >> work on branches made before this change, your life may be made easier > by > >> cherry-picking feeb5c98402881156b34e222c58ce15c71a4fca7 (which added > >> Spotless) into your branch and then running ‘gradlew spotlessApply’ on > it > >> before attempting to merge into develop. > >> > >> — Jared > >>> On Oct 21, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Mark Bretl <asf.mbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Jared for the suggestion of Spotless and follow-up work. > >>> > >>> This is now completed and checked into develop. As this does touch many > >>> files, be prepared the next time you pull. > >>> > >>> --Mark > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Jared Stewart <jstew...@pivotal.io> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Done! :) > >>>> > >>>> - Jared > >>>>> On Oct 21, 2016, at 12:27 PM, Mark Bretl <asf.mbr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> One more time! :) > >>>>> > >>>>> Conflicting files > >>>>> geode-core/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/disttx/ > >> PRDistTXDUnitTest.java > >>>>> geode-core/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/disttx/ > >>>> PRDistTXWithVersionsDUnitTest.java > >>>>> geode-core/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/internal/cache/execute/ > >>>> PRTransactionDUnitTest.java > >>>>> > >>>>> --Mark > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Jared Stewart <jstew...@pivotal.io > > > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I just pulled and rebased onto develop, and force pushed into the > >>>> existing > >>>>>> pull request. It should be clean to merge in now. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Jared > >>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Mark Bretl <asf.mbr...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I believe there is enough consensus here to check this into > develop. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jared, due to recent checkins into develop, can you update the pull > >>>>>> request > >>>>>>> one more time? Trying to make this as clean as possible. I will > check > >>>>>> into > >>>>>>> develop after the update, unless someone else gets to it first. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> All, can we hold checkins on develop until the new formatter is > >>>> applied? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --Mark > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2016, at 8:27 AM, Bruce Schuchardt < > >>>> bschucha...@pivotal.io> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Le 10/20/2016 à 5:13 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer a écrit : > >>>>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 20/10/16 4:56 pm, Mark Bretl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 as well... > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> - Pulled changes > >>>>>>>>>>> - Executed './gradlew clean build' and was successful. > >>>>>>>>>>> - Modified a couple of random files to test > >>>>>>>>>>> - Ran './gradlew clean build' again and failed expectedly > >>>>>>>>>>> - Ran './gradlew spotlessApply', task was successful > >>>>>>>>>>> - Ran './gradlew clean build' and succeeded > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Great addition! As long as others are good with the formatter, > >>>> then I > >>>>>>>> am > >>>>>>>>>>> good. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> --Mark > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 I just added my approval to the PR (and again here) > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Jared Stewart < > >>>> jstew...@pivotal.io > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have opened a pull request here < > https://github.com/apache/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> incubator-geode/pull/268> to enable the Spotless plugin and > to > >>>>>>>> switch to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Google Java Style formatter templates. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 18, 2016, at 4:32 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For reference TRAC #38741 was a bug with the summary > >>>> "EOFException > >>>>>>>>>>>> during > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserialize on client update with copy-on-read=true" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Kirk > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Jared Stewart < > >>>>>> jstew...@pivotal.io > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To give everyone an update, using the Google Java Style > >> eclipse > >>>>>>>>>>>> template > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is an issue spotlessCheck where fails for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geode-core/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/cache30/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bug38741DUnitTest.java > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if you run it directly after spotlessApply. This needs > >> to > >>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigated and fixed before I can open a pull request to > >>>> enable > >>>>>>>>>>>>> spotless. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 14, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io > > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 - The formatting looks better now. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Jared Stewart < > >>>>>>>> jstew...@pivotal.io > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the formatter needs fixing up. Our wiki < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Code+ > >>>>>>>> Style+Guide> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we follow the Google Java Style guide, but that is > not > >>>>>>>> actually > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what’s > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in our formatter templates. I pushed a new branch < > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jaredjstewart/incubator-geode/tree/ > >>>> spotlessPluginGoogleStyle> > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spotless at the actual Google Java Style template, and I > >>>> think > >>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>> makes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both of the examples you found look better. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Dan Smith < > >> dsm...@pivotal.io> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for adding this to ./gradlew build > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think we might want to fix up the formatter a bit > >>>> before > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformatting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the code. I tried running spotlessApply, and it did some > >>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformatting of code to make it less readable. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One problem is with method chaining. We have a few > >> different > >>>>>>>>>>>> factory > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that encourage method chaining, and it put all the > method > >>>>>> calls > >>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line. For example here's one change: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ClientCacheFactory ccf = new > ClientCacheFactory() > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .addPoolServer(NetworkUtils.getServerHostName(server1. > >>>>>>>> getHost()), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - .set(SECURITY_CLIENT_AUTH_INIT, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UserPasswordAuthInit.class.getName() + ".create") > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - .set(SECURITY_PREFIX+"username", "root") > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - .set(SECURITY_PREFIX+"password", "root"); > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ClientCacheFactory ccf = new > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ClientCacheFactory().addPoolServer(NetworkUtils. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getServerHostName(server1.getHost()), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> port).set(SECURITY_CLIENT_AUTH_INIT, > >>>>>>>> UserPasswordAuthInit.class. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getName() > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ".create").set(SECURITY_PREFIX + "username", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "root").set(SECURITY_PREFIX > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "password", "root"); > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see a similar problem where it put array > initialization > >>>> all > >>>>>>>> on a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + public void testMultiColOrderByWithIndexRe > >>>>>>>> sultWithProjection() > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throws > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exception { > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String queries[] = { > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Test case No. IUMR021 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID > 10 order by ID desc, pkid desc ", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID > 10 order by ID asc, pkid asc ", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID > 10 and ID < 20 order by ID asc, pkid asc ", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID > 10 and ID < 20 order by ID desc , pkid desc", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID >= 10 and ID <= 20 order by ID desc, pkid asc > ", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID >= 10 and ID <= 20 order by ID asc, pkid desc", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID != 10 order by ID asc , pkid desc", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID != 10 order by ID desc, pkid asc ", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID > 10 order by ID desc, pkid desc limit 5", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID > 10 order by ID asc, pkid asc limit 5", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID > 10 and ID < 20 order by ID asc, pkid desc > >> limit 5 > >>>>>> ", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID > 10 and ID < 20 order by ID desc, pkid asc > limit > >>>> 5", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID >= 10 and ID <= 20 order by ID desc, pkid desc > >>>> limit > >>>>>>>> 5", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID >= 10 and ID <= 20 order by ID asc, pkid asc > >> limit > >>>>>> 5", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID != 10 order by ID asc , pkid desc limit 10", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID != 10 order by ID desc, pkid desc limit 10", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - }; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID > 10 order by ID desc, pkid desc ", "SELECT > ID, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> description, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> createTime, pkid FROM /portfolio1 pf1 where ID > 10 > order > >> by > >>>>>> ID > >>>>>>>>>>>> asc, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pkid > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asc ", "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid FROM > >>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID > 10 and ID < 20 order by ID asc, pkid asc ", > >>>> "SELECT > >>>>>>>>>>>> ID, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description, createTime, pkid FROM /portfolio1 pf1 where > >> ID > >>>>> > >>>>>> 10 > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20 order by ID desc , pkid desc", "SELECT ID, > >> description, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> createTime, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pkid FROM /portfolio1 pf1 where ID >= 10 and ID <= 20 > >> order > >>>> by > >>>>>>>> ID > >>>>>>>>>>>>> desc, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pkid asc ", "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > >> FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 where ID >= 10 and ID <= 20 order by ID asc, pkid > >> desc", > >>>>>>>>>>>> "SELECT > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description, createTime, pkid FROM /portfolio1 pf1 where > >> ID > >>>> != > >>>>>>>> 10 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> order > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID asc , pkid desc", "SELECT ID, description, > >> createTime, > >>>>>> pkid > >>>>>>>>>>>> FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 pf1 where ID != 10 order by ID desc, pkid > asc > >> ", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid > FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where ID > 10 order by ID desc, pkid desc limit 5", > >> "SELECT > >>>>>>>> ID, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description, createTime, pkid FROM /portfolio1 pf1 where > >> ID > >>>>> > >>>>>> 10 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> order > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID asc, pkid asc limit 5", "SELECT ID, description, > >>>>>>>> createTime, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> pkid > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 pf1 where ID > 10 and ID < 20 order by ID > asc, > >>>>>> pkid > >>>>>>>>>>>> desc > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 ", "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid FROM > >>>>>>>> /portfolio1 > >>>>>>>>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID > 10 and ID < 20 order by ID desc, pkid asc limit 5", > >>>>>> "SELECT > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ID, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description, createTime, pkid FROM /portfolio1 pf1 where > >> ID > >>>>> = > >>>>>>>> 10 > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <= > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20 order by ID desc, pkid desc limit 5", "SELECT ID, > >>>>>>>> description, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> createTime, pkid FROM /portfolio1 pf1 where ID >= 10 and > >> ID > >>>> <= > >>>>>>>> 20 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> order > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID asc, pkid asc limit 5", "SELECT ID, description, > >>>>>>>> createTime, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> pkid > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FROM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /portfolio1 pf1 where ID != 10 order by ID asc , pkid > desc > >>>>>> limit > >>>>>>>>>>>> 10", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "SELECT ID, description, createTime, pkid FROM > >> /portfolio1 > >>>>>> pf1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> where > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> != 10 order by ID desc, pkid desc limit 10", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + }; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Jared Stewart < > >>>>>>>>>>>> jstew...@pivotal.io> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The task is fully suppressible with -x spotlessCheck. > >>>> Also, > >>>>>> if > >>>>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any formatter errors you can automatically fix them > with > >>>>>>>> 'gradle > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spotlessApply’. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Kevin Duling < > >>>>>> kdul...@pivotal.io > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we made formatting a warning, then people would > >>>> probably > >>>>>>>>>>>> quickly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we made formatting an error, we need to be sure we > >>>> don't > >>>>>>>> get > >>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation where <editor of choice>'s formatter is not > in > >>>>>>>>>>>> agreement > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build's checker. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can live with an additional 17 seconds as well. And > >>>>>> Jared's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduced the build time locally by 50%. But I still > want > >>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ability > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppress the check similar to -x javadoc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:58 PM, William Markito < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wmark...@pivotal.io> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds really good to me as well. +1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Jared Stewart < > >>>>>>>>>>>>> jstew...@pivotal.io > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is running locally on my laptop. Since > Spotless > >> is > >>>>>>>> only > >>>>>>>>>>>>> doing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formatting and not any other static analysis, it > >> already > >>>>>>>> has 0 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Other than, of course, formatting not consistent > with > >>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> template.) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Kenneth Howe < > >>>>>>>> kh...@pivotal.io> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree with Mark, this has to work with 0 errors > >> before > >>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful in precheckin. I think I could live with an > >>>>>>>> additional > >>>>>>>>>>>> 17 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most of the time for running the spotlessCheck as > >>>>>> suggested. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jared, Is that 17 seconds running locally on your > >>>> laptop > >>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>> on a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capable machine? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Jared Stewart < > >>>>>>>>>>>>> jstew...@pivotal.io> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to try it out, I pushed a branch to my > >>>> Geode > >>>>>>>> repo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains this change: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jaredjstewart/incubator-geode/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tree/spotlessPlugin > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jaredjstewart/incubator-geode/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tree/spotlessPlugin > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Darrel Schneider < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dschnei...@pivotal.io > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like Dan's idea of catching formatting issues > >>>> earlier > >>>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5-10 minutes to "build" would be too much. > >> Currently > >>>>>> when > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick build I use -xjavadoc. I'd probably do > the > >>>> same > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was part of build until I'm ready to do a > >>>>>> precheckin. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark, wouldn't running the formatter on all our > >> java > >>>>>>>> files > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checking > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in get these issues down to 0? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ukohlme...@pivotal.io > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 - adding checkstyle to precheckin. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the developer uses the provided templates ( > >>>>>> eclipse + > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intellij) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most of the formatting issues should be handled > >>>> before > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precheckin. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a developer has a questionable coding style, > that > >>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lessen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer will have resolve the issues before > >> being > >>>>>>>> able to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also believe that this should not be an > >>>> overbearing > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intrusive > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Udo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/10/16 6:36 am, Mark Bretl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is some extra amount of time, 5-10 > minutes > >>>>>> extra > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project (depending on your CPU). I think the > real > >>>>>>>> issue to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precheckin target and have it be 'effective' is > >> it > >>>>>>>> needs > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully, otherwise it would turn into > noise > >>>> most > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to get the issues down to 0 or manage > to > >>>> set > >>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> new > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baseline > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the best idea), which is a lot of work, to make > >> it > >>>>>> run > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, if you run the target, it will fail every > >> time > >>>>>>>> since > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outstanding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues in the code and very hard to tell what > >>>> issues > >>>>>>>> were > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Mark > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Dan Smith < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsm...@pivotal.io> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems like it should run as part of the build > >>>> target. > >>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it part of precheckin is if it takes a > long > >>>>>> time, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should get fast feedback they need to change > >> their > >>>>>>>> code > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Jared > Stewart > >> < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jstew...@pivotal.io> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to running during the precheckin target as > >> well > >>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CI > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2016 11:20 AM, "Darrel Schneider" > < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dschnei...@pivotal.io> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Travis CI is only run on pull requests > then > >>>> that > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers do not submit pull requests. > Having > >> it > >>>>>> run > >>>>>>>>>>>>> during > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gradle > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build or precheckin target is also needed. > In > >>>>>>>> addition > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted PRs to be checked. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Jared > >> Stewart > >>>> < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jstew...@pivotal.io> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would certainly be necessary to make sure > >>>> that > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> code > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> style > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced is sensible, e.g. doe not use > wildcard > >>>>>>>> imports. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to make one large commit to format all > >>>>>> existing > >>>>>>>>>>>> code > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turning > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this on. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark - Thank you for the information about > >> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> existing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark, Darrel, Kevin - Given all of your > >>>>>> comments, I > >>>>>>>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more sense to add the flag to enable it in > >> Travis > >>>>>> CI > >>>>>>>>>>>>> rather > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the build. This way your build pass > >>>>>> regardless > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whitespace, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CI job would fail on PRs if they did not > >> adhere > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formatting. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony - It doesn’t seem to me that > turning > >>>> this > >>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of combining reformatting commits and > logic > >>>>>>>> changes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rather, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code would already be formatted, there would > no > >>>>>>>> longer > >>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reformatting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commits except for single large commits > when > >>>> the > >>>>>>>> code > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> style > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Bruce > >> Schuchardt > >>>> < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschucha...@pivotal.io > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the idea of doing this but I don't > >>>> think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkstyle > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled until all of the code is reformatted. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, last time I checked there was > still a > >>>>>>>> problem > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IntelliJ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> auto-format settings. It still used wildcard > >>>>>>>> imports, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't allow. I've manually changed my > >> settings > >>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Editor->Code > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Style->Java > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to "Use single class import" to correct > that > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem. I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't see > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get Gradle to do it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 10/12/2016 à 10:28 AM, Anthony Baker a > >>>> écrit > >>>>>> : > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Source code with a consistent > >> look-and-feel > >>>>>>>> makes it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easier > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to join the project community and > contribute. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s continue to keep reformatting > commits > >>>>>>>> separate > >>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes—otherwise it’s too hard to > review. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2016, at 10:06 AM, Dan Smith > < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsm...@pivotal.io> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This might be a good time to reformat > the > >>>> code > >>>>>>>>>>>> since > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are too many long lived feature branches > >>>>>>>> outstanding. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Jared > >>>>>> Stewart > >>>>>>>> < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jstew...@pivotal.io > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to advocate for adding a > >>>>>> Checkstyle < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://checkstyle > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sourceforge.net/> or Spotless < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/diffplug/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spotless > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gradle task to our build process to ensure > >> that > >>>>>> all > >>>>>>>>>>>> code > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checked > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meets > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the formatting standards described on the > >>>> wiki < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confluence/display/GEODE/Code+ > Style+Guide> > >>>> (and > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intellij/eclipse > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formatter xml files in our repository). > This > >>>>>> will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alleviate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difficulties > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewing code when whitespace or > formatting > >>>> has > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changed > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checked in will already comply with > >> standards. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~/William > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >
