<br><br>On Thursday, May 22, 2014, Karel Piwko <<a href="mailto:kpiwko@redhat.com">kpiwko@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This is the same issue as with unit tests. If they tend to take too<br>
much time, people are skipping them.<br>
<br>
What about activating checkstyle in CI and or Git push hook, for both PRs and<br>
direct commits upstream. This way a developer can develop without constraints<br>
*until* he wants to push the code upstream. Would it help?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>-1</div><div><br></div><div>I think we should work on proper templates for our IDEs instead<span></span></div><div><br></div><div>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Karel<br>
<br>
On Wed, 21 May 2014 11:38:02 -0300<br>
Bruno Oliveira <<a>bruno@abstractj.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I don't think you need to prove anything, to me is just the matter of<br>
> reach a consensus and think about what works for the whole team.<br>
><br>
> Is still possible skip checkstyle and leave the mess to the person doing the<br>
> release, even worse, the person doing the release can also skip this.<br>
><br>
> The only thing able to guarantee the quality of the code is the developer's<br>
> conscience. I don't think that enforcing checkstyle default rules will make<br>
> us more conscious tbh.<br>
><br>
> On 2014-05-21, Karel Piwko wrote:<br>
> > That's not true, it was discussed during team meeting at<br>
> > the times we've been using G+ as well (I can't prove that) and on ML as<br>
> > well:<br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-JavaScript-formatter-td5200.html" target="_blank">http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-JavaScript-formatter-td5200.html</a><br>
> ><br>
> > It just took 7 month for the PR to be merged. The point of initial<br>
> > checkstyle rules set was chosen because:<br>
> ><br>
> > * It was identified as the least annoying setup on ML, there were a lot of<br>
> > +1s<br>
> > * There was a bug in released library caused by using unused import that<br>
> > was not available on classpath. I might be able to dig it out but it would<br>
> > take me a lot of time as I don't recall what project it was.<br>
> ><br>
> > +9001 for abstract's proposal on having same setup for IDE as well. There is<br>
> > nothing more annoying then something working in IDE but not in Maven. -1<br>
> > for the specific profile, as it shifts responsibility to clean up the mess<br>
> > to the person doing the release.<br>
> ><br>
> > Karel<br>
> ><br>
> > On Tue, 20 May 2014 16:20:52 -0300<br>
> > Bruno Oliveira <<a>bruno@abstractj.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > > The only reason to have checkstyle enabled by default is: if we agree on<br>
> > > which rules should be active or not and provide an specific IDE setup.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Other than that, people like me will skip it. Why? Simple, I'm trying to<br>
> > > solve critical problems and also strugging to figure out why checkstyle<br>
> > > is do care about method lenght.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > So to me if you're guys really want to introduce it we need:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > - Definition of which rules were supposed to be active<br>
> > > - IDE profiles for Eclipse/IntelliJ<br>
> > > - Make the error messages something clear<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Otherwise, I'm -∞. It was never discussed here and if it exists on<br>
> > > aerogear-parent is all our fault.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On 2014-05-20, Daniel Bevenius wrote:<br>
> > > > -1 I'd prefer to have checkstyle enabled by default, and integrate the<br>
> > > > checkstyle into the IDE to avoid having to discover issue later when<br>
> > > > building with maven.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > On 20 May 2014 20:56, Bruno Oliveira <<a>bruno@abstractj.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > > +1 on having an specific profile for checkstyle<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > On 2014-05-20, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:<br>
> > > > > > Hello,<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > w/ the advent of the 0.2.0 parent, we have checkstyle enabled;<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > However, I am not that happy, as the default rules are IMO a bit odd<br>
> > > > > (e.g.<br>
> > > > > > the unused imports is pretty nasty when developing)<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > We could:<br>
> > > > > > a) get rid of it (perhaps not)<br>
> > > > > > b) disable it on normal execution and only execute it on a release<br>
> > > > > profile<br>
> > > > > > or like that<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > right now I am running w/ skip - but that's a bit nasty...<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > > > > Thoughts?<br>
> > > > > > Matthias<br>
> > > > > ><br>
> > > </blockquote><br><br>-- <br>Sent from Gmail Mobile<br>