I like the layout you suggested Chia-Ping and also to check this in the precommit run. Shall we also add "not to use * imports" to the verification?
On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org> wrote: > bq. I guess you meant attention. > You are right. sorry for the misspelling. ☹ > > On 2017-10-01 23:33, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > bq. hold our attraction > > > > I guess you meant attention. > > > > The suggestions under Q1 are good. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > hi folks, > > > > > > I noticed the code conflict occurs on the imports frequently. To > resolve > > > the conflict is a complete waste of time, so i feel it is time to > update > > > our imports layout and hold our attraction on it. > > > > > > The import layout is shown below. (see hbase_eclipse_formatter.xml) > > > javax.* > > > blank line > > > java.* > > > blank line > > > import all other imports > > > blank line > > > import static all other imports > > > > > > Q1: > > > As i see it, two updates should be considered. > > > 1) Should we move the "import static" to the top? (It seems most of > files > > > have its static imports on the top) > > > 2) Should we move the shaded class into new blocks? > > > > > > The new layout looks like this. > > > import static all other imports > > > blank line > > > javax.* > > > blank line > > > java.* > > > blank line > > > org.* > > > blank line > > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.shaded.* > > > blank line > > > import all other imports > > > > > > Q2: > > > Should we check the import layout before committing? Perhaps we can > > > address this in the HBASE-18438. The issue try to add the check of > unused > > > imports > > > > > > Any suggestions? Thanks. > > > -- > > > Chia-Ping > > > > > > > > >
