Overall I'm PRO, as consistency is worth a lot, and tools can apply such changes consistently and efficiently.
We have applied broad formatting changes to large JS codebases using jscs, which has worked well when those changes were well prepared. Typically, this involved gradually refining the tool settings until a reasonable diff was achieved.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:14 AM Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 7:27 AM Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
CON: don't do mass migration to new syntax, only start using new styles and features when touching the respective bit of code anyway. The argument is here that touching many lines of code, even if it's just for whitespace changes, causes merge conflicts when doing backports and when rebasing patches. E.g. if we touch half the files in the codebase to change to the new array syntax, who is going to manually rebase the couple of hundred patches we have open?
As can be seen on the proposed patch I linked, several of the long term developers oppose mass changes like this. A quick round of feedback in the architecture committee draws a similar picture. However, perhaps there are compelling arguments for doing the mass migration that we haven't heard yet. So please give a quick PRO or CON, optionally with some rationale.
My personal vote is CON. No rebase hell please! Changing to the syntax doesn't buy us anything.
CON, for all the reasons you mentioned. Also: style only changes are pain when you're trying to annotate/blame a particular line of code.
ESPECIALLY for something so silly as array formatting which gains us *absolutely nothing*
-Chad
I change my vote to PRO.
Mainly because people are gonna do it anyway...
Last thoughts on the thread, I got bigger fish to fry than array syntax sugar :D
-Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l