Yes. That way we only need to fix one package at a time. Andor
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:10 PM Zili Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andor, > > To be exact, "iterations" means we define the original rules > in checkstyle configuration at once and turn them on one package > after another, so iterations. Is it correct? > > Best, > tison. > > > Andor Molnar <[email protected]> 于2019年7月1日周一 下午9:09写道： > > > I like the idea of doing this in iterations. > > > > Andor > > > > > > > > > On 2019. Jun 29., at 8:35, Zili Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > A solution could be, we remains current simple configuration > > > and introduce a so-called "strict-checkstyle.xml" and apply > > > it per package. Once we enable it on every package, we can > > > merge it into the simple configuration. > > > > > > Best, > > > tison. > > > > > > > > > Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午2:19写道： > > > > > >> Il sab 29 giu 2019, 07:59 Zili Chen <[email protected]> ha > scritto: > > >> > > >>> Thank you Enrico. It seems my previous reply delivered > > >>> into another thread. Repost below. > > >>> > > >>> Hi zookeepers, > > >>> > > >>> I have proceeded ZOOKEEPER-3446 and been guided to here > > >>> to discuss for a consensus before any more efforts. > > >>> > > >>> In general， +1 on introducing and forcing checkstyle. > > >>> > > >>> About the process, I agree that we firstly reach a consensus > > >>> on the configuration and enable it per package. In order for > > >>> our contributors to rebase as few times as possible, we'd > > >>> better introduce all rules we all agree on at once. Note that > > >>> we could always add rule if someone ask for and agreed by the > > >>> community. > > >>> > > >>> Currently, we turn on checkstyle on all modules. > > >> > > >> > > >> This is quite important because we are using inlt in order to prevent > > >> @author tags. > > >> This was part of the ant based precommit job > > >> > > >> Enrico > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Following the > > >>> process above, we firstly turn off it once we apply the new > > >>> configuration, and then turn on it per package. > > >>> > > >>> If the community is willing to do this work, a JIRA about the new > > >>> checkstyle configuration should be filed and we continue the > discussion > > >>> there. Generally, rules proposed by Enrico are good start point and > > >>> I agree on we should not introduce anything "fancy", but according to > > >>> what is actually needed. > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> tison. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> 于2019年6月29日周六 下午1:51写道： > > >>> > > >>>> @Zili Chen > > >>>> This is the original email thread. So you can answer here. > > >>>> > > >>>> Enrico > > >>>> > > >>>> Il ven 28 giu 2019, 11:04 Norbert Kalmar > <[email protected] > > >>> > > >>> ha > > >>>> scritto: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Community is eager to jump on on this, we already have pull > requests > > >>>>> cleaning up imports :) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> First of all, sorry for the late reply (I thought I already > answered > > >>>> this, > > >>>>> I remember reading it and drawing up an answer. Oh well) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Some big patches are already reviewed, I think we should commit as > > >> much > > >>>> as > > >>>>> possible before doing this refactor. (I'll also try to rev up my > code > > >>>>> review/commit thread) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> As for waiting for 3.6.0 - I don't see the reason we should. Unless > > >> of > > >>>>> course this would delay the release too much... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I haven't checked HBase checkstyle against our code, I don't think > we > > >>>>> should introduce anything "fancy". What Enrico listed up sounds > like > > >> a > > >>>> good > > >>>>> starting point. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> +1 on introducing and forcing checkstyle. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Regards, > > >>>>> Norbert > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:27 PM Enrico Olivelli < > [email protected] > > >>> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Justin, > > >>>>>> Thank you so much for your help in this. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I would suggest to apply all of the rules in one pass, splitting > > >> the > > >>>> work > > >>>>>> per package. > > >>>>>> This way reviews will be easier, we will limit the number of > > >> commits > > >>>> and > > >>>>> we > > >>>>>> won't annoy too much the contributors , asking for hard rebases > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> This is how we did it on Apache Bookkeeper > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/230 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I will help review and commit all of your patches, it will be > > >>> mostly a > > >>>>>> matter of code reformat without any behavior change. > > >>>>>> Currently I am doing the same kind of work on others projects of > my > > >>>>>> company, so I perfectly know how the work will go. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Before starting we must ensure that: > > >>>>>> 1) community is willing to do this work (we will force a rebase on > > >>>> mostly > > >>>>>> every pending PR) > > >>>>>> 2) the proposed configuration is accepted by the community > > >>>>>> 3) it is the good time to do it, or should we wait for 3.6.0 to be > > >>> out > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I see you are referring to hbase checkstyle file, did you > already > > >>>>> checked > > >>>>>> how much different it is from current project style? > > >>>>>> Will we only need to remove trailing spaces, reorder members, fix > > >>>>> imports, > > >>>>>> cut long lines ? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Cheers > > >>>>>> Enrico > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Il dom 23 giu 2019, 15:11 Justin Ling Mao < > > >> [email protected] > > >>>> > > >>>> ha > > >>>>>> scritto: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Background:zookeeper-server is the main-module of the zk > > >> codebase. > > >>>>>>> Unfortunately, there were many checkstyle violations in it. To > > >>>> improve > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>> code quality and code standards, > > >>>>>>> IMHO, it's time to clean up the all the checkstyle > > >> violations(turn > > >>> on > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>>> <failOnViolation>true</failOnViolation>). we can learn from the > > >>> hbase > > >>>>>> whose > > >>>>>>> checkstyle(almost 40+ rules) is very strict and ensures a very > > >>>> unified > > >>>>>> code > > >>>>>>> style.( > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/master/hbase-checkstyle/src/main/resources/hbase/checkstyle.xml > > >>>>>>> ) > > >>>>>>> My planing is: clean up the all the checkstyle one rule by > > >> another > > >>> to > > >>>>>>> avoid too much code changes for review. > > >>>>>>> Everything's hard in the beginning, I have fired my first shot( > > >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/992). > > >>>>>>> If this draft has accepted by the community, I will create the > > >>>>>>> corresponding sub-tasks for more people joining this work. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Cited the comment from Enrico Olivelli in the > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > ZOOKEEPER-3431:--------------------------------------------------------------we > > >>>>>>> have to discuss this topic with the community.I have experience > > >> on > > >>>>>>> BookKeeper, we had to clean up groups of packages.This is the > > >> kind > > >>> of > > >>>>>> stuff > > >>>>>>> that invalidates all of the pending pull requests.I have already > > >>> sett > > >>>>> up > > >>>>>> a > > >>>>>>> basic checkstyle configuration file and it is already active but > > >> it > > >>>> is > > >>>>>>> performing only very basic checks (like no 'author' tags).I will > > >>>>>> appreciate > > >>>>>>> very much if you want to drive this effort, personally I would > > >>> start > > >>>>> this > > >>>>>>> stuff after 3.6.0 release, once we consolidate current master and > > >>> the > > >>>>>> maven > > >>>>>>> build. I would have sent an email on the dev@ list soon.We also > > >>> have > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>> agree on the checkstyle configuration, it is not trivial, I would > > >>>> take > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>>> file from HBase, BookKeeper or other ASF projects on the Haddoop > > >>>>>> ecosystem. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
