If this path is followed...

#1 establish coding conventions
#2 commit SDK to SVN (as-is)
#3 run the code formatter against SDK
#4 commit / update reformatted code
#5 begin work on Apache Flex


...there should be no issue with previous or future diffs. 

Cheers,

Rick Winscot


On Thursday, January 5, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Douglas Arthur wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carol Frampton [mailto:cfram...@adobe.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 4:55 PM
> > To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org (mailto:flex-dev@incubator.apache.org)
> > Subject: Re: Flex SDK code conventions
> > 
> > I think it would be okay to move the Flex coding standard over to Apache.
> > 
> > We/I updated the standard about a year ago with some changes people
> > wanted, like allowing line lengths up to 100 chars. We didn't take the time 
> > to
> > eliminate all the TBDs.
> > 
> > I will strongly advocate for 4 spaces rather than tabs. Too many apps mess 
> > up
> > the tabs or use 8 spaces rather than 4 by default.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I want to see existing code reformatted because it gets very
> > hard to go back to earlier revisions and see what changed. New modules
> > should be written to whatever the coding standard is. Bug fixes should be
> > done in the style of the code around it.
> > 
> > Carol
> 
> I'm going to have to disagree on not reformatting the existing codebase. I've 
> been in this situation before and understand it does cause some issues with 
> past comparisons, but the goal is to hopefully move forward and not have to 
> be doing much of that. At worst case, two previous revisions can be compared 
> against each other, and then the revision in question can be compared to the 
> initially imported and formatted revision, which wouldn't have any changes 
> other than re-formatting. This way going forward, all the code is consistent 
> and can be easily followed along with. In the long run, this solution has 
> proven to be very valuable and productive in my experience.
> 
> I agree with all your other points.
> 
> - Doug 

Reply via email to