I think we all agree a standard is good, and the standard at the moment is Lucene, and nobody seems against that.
I don't think everyone's required to rush out and make a change today or at any particular point, nice as that might be. What's the issue exactly with someone else having a go at fixing 1, 100, or 1000 of the issues? Is it just the work of fixing existing patches, which ought to be at a minimum now? Robin offered to try to take that on too. The discussion could be, do we want a different, more lax standard? But I think that's more effort than just letting this patch go through* and taking the hit more or less once. * modulo the static qualifier business On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Robin Anil <robin.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a patch to remove the StaticQualifier which was bought in due to the > change. But the consensus seem to be in favor of a roll back. In case we do > rollback, what will be the further course of action. I am against leaving > the code untouched. As I said now is the time to do this. If anyone want to > do some addition and substraction from the current checkstyle please do so. > All I am saying is things become much easier If we do this at this point and > not that we shouldnt be liberal in code styling etc > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Drew Farris <drew.far...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > In general, I am a big "-1" to blindly applying the Lucene code >> formatter. >> > It's going to go and do a bunch of stuff like this (unimportant >> reorderings >> > of imports, etc). >> > >> [..] >> >> > I think we've got enough negative votes toward mass application of >> > checkstyle formatting, yes? >> >> Well, if we need one more, I'm a -1 on this too. >> >
