Re: Checkstyle / code style / reformatting

That sounds like another one to wait for until code freeze. :) On Sep 29, 2017, at 7:45 AM, Daan Hoogland > wrote: ohw dear Mike, I am changing the log4j version, brr. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Tutkowski, Mike

Re: Checkstyle / code style / reformatting

I wonder if it wouldn’t be best to wait on this until master is in code freeze. At that point, it seems like we could add whatever rules we’d like and have almost no impact on pending master PRs. For me personally, although I haven’t opened it yet, I have a large PR I plan to open in the

Re: Checkstyle / code style / reformatting

I am in favor of that. I only have a comment to add. We are already checking code style when validating PRs. So, it is only a matter of adding more checks to the check-style plugin that we are already using. On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Marc-Aurèle Brothier wrote: > The

Re: Checkstyle / code style / reformatting

The checkstyle rules can be imported in pretty much any IDE to help during coding and to display the errors immediately. To speed up the detection of checkstyle errors, we could edit the post commit hooks to run a mvn command only for the checkstyle rules, and then do the usual stuff. I'm not in

Re: Checkstyle / code style / reformatting

I am a fan of convention and think everyone should have some. Strict enforcing of non-functionals, I'm not to big on. I see what you want to achieve here but am reluctant not to -1 any strictness. If we do it with a post-commit-hook (or if such a thing exists a post-merge-hook) we will allow for

Checkstyle / code style / reformatting

Hi everyone, Would you think it's worth tightening the checkstyle rules and run a reformatting pass on the code base to align everything slowly? I know it will hide changes using the blame functionality, and would force people to edit some PR. Is the trade-off worth it for you? The idea would be