This is awesome, thank you for taking the time to figure out how to do this smoothly.
—Jared > On Oct 24, 2016, at 10:40 AM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
