Hi Ivan if by conflict we mean arguing and fighting it is definitely should be avoided, it never helps the community.
But if we mean different opinions on details (variable namings, method structure, etc), such different views are unavoidable and I find it is perfectly ok that people with different background have different views. The paramount thing here if we can solve such conflicts with a positive outcome for all community and for the codebase. The good friend of mine reminded me some time ago that we all have a common goal here: make the community bigger and this project better. If we always remember that we are connected by a common interest but we admit each contributor may have different preferences in coding and probably different opinion. We may build up consensus sharing our arguments if it is really needed, or these different opinions/priorities/preferences may co-exist. In a particular case, if reviewer's concerns are not major, another reviewer can agree with your proposal. So it should be always considered case-by-case, there is no silver bullet here. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov вт, 23 окт. 2018 г., 11:32 Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com>: > Igniters, > > I think it's easy to disable the code style abbreviation plugin option by > switching off > the checkbox on - File | Settings | Inspections | Apache Ignite | Incorrect > Java abbreviation usage. > > +1 to make abbreviation not mandatory, but I'd like to keep it for common > variable names like `context = ctx`. > > On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 14:05 Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I also think that abbreviations should not be mandatory (point 3). > > But what I am worrying about is a conflict resolution between a patch > > submitter and a reviewer. > > How to come to an agreement when one side is strictly for and another > side > > is strictly against > > using abbreviations in some concrete case? > > > > вс, 21 окт. 2018 г. в 11:34, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>: > > > > > +1 for proposal 3. > > > > > > 1. I'm not sure we need to revisit all abbreviations as a lot of people > > get > > > used to it. > > > 2. I'm not sure multiword is always need to be fully named, sometimes > it > > > may be ok to abbreviate. > > > 3. But I agree with abbreviations should not be mandatory. > > > > > > Abbreviated and short names like i,j,cp and etc. are good for simple > > > methods and code blocks; for a fast demonstration of some idea, but for > > > complex enterprise level software it can hide meaning instead of > clearly > > > showing it. > > > > > > As a next step, I would like to propose to contribute an option to > > disable > > > abbreviation requirements for some cases in ignite-abbrev-plugin. > > > > > > сб, 20 окт. 2018 г. в 10:47, Zhenya <arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid>: > > > > > > > +1 for all proposals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > -- > -- > Maxim Muzafarov >
