I think we can also just include the pre-configured files in the .idea/ folder in the project root. I can find out how that works.
On 7/1/12 11:20 PM, "Hyunsik Choi" <[email protected]> wrote: >If IDE configurations should be provided, they can be available from the >web page. For example, the section 'Generating Patches' in the home ( >http://giraph.apache.org) would be good place. > >-- >Hyunsik Choi > >On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Alessandro Presta <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> I don't think we currently have IDE configurations in the repo. We >>should >> do that. I can see how that works for IntelliJ IDEA. Anyone using >>Eclipse? >> >> On 7/1/12 11:06 PM, "Hyunsik Choi" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >That seems a great idea. In addition to the order of imports, it will >>be >> >better if all coding convention is included in both IDE configurations. >> > >> >-- >> >Hyunsik Choi >> > >> >On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Avery Ching <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> I think uniformity is good. I think as long as IDE's support our >>rules >> >> (as Alessandro mentioned) this can only be better. We can continue >>this >> >> discussion per GIRAPH-230. >> >> >> >> Avery >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7/1/12 8:35 AM, Alessandro Presta wrote: >> >> >> >>> I think we should strive to make the signal-to-noise ratio of our >> >>>diffs as >> >>> high as possible, while at the same time enforce a certain level of >> >>> uniformity. >> >>> Besides, we already have a bunch of conventions for imports in >> >>> checkstyle.xml, so this is straightforward. >> >>> IDEA (and I'm pretty sure Eclipse too) can organize your imports >>given >> >>>a >> >>> set of rules, and there are also Checkstyle plugins that run checks >> >>>while >> >>> you're coding. >> >>> >> >>> On 6/30/12 6:43 AM, "Jakob Homan" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> My thought is that after reviewing a lot of patches, I honestly >>don't >> >>>> care about the imports... If your IDE can do something sensible >>with >> >>>> them, that's great. But they have no effect on the code or add any >> >>>> extra effort to the code reviews. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Avery Ching <[email protected]> >> >>>>wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> It's not silly at all. I suggest that we add some checkstyle >>rules >> >>>>>for >> >>>>> enforcing our convention as well. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>http://checkstyle.sourceforge.**net/config_imports.html< >> http://checkst >> >>>>>yle.sourceforge.net/config_imports.html> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I like AvoidStarImport, RedundantImport, UnusedImports, and (most >> >>>>> related to >> >>>>> this question) ImportOrder. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Any thoughts? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Avery >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 6/29/12 8:23 AM, Alessandro Presta wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi all, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Kind of a silly concern, but nevertheless: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> IntelliJ IDEA does a great job at optimizing imports for you. >>While >> >>>>>> doing >> >>>>>> so, it also insists in reorganizing them following some logic. >> >>>>>> Since it's not nice to have a patch dirtied by imports reordering >> >>>>>>every >> >>>>>> time a different person touches a class, it could be a good idea >>to >> >>>>>> come up >> >>>>>> with a convention and configure our IDEs accordingly. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Example (blank lines matter): >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> org.apache.giraph.* >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> org.* >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> com.* >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> javax.* >> >>>>>> java.* >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Or any variation you prefer. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> If there is agreement we can update the code conventions. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Alessandro >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
