Open NoraCodes opened 9 years ago
So long as IDE integration is optional to the build and testing process. (We should always be able to do everything needed from the command line)
Agreed. No harm in offering a PyCharm config, though. Many people swear by
it ;)
On 8 October 2015 at 15:46, BrendanBenshoof notifications@github.com wrote:
So long as IDE integration is optional to the build and testing process. (We should always be able to do everything needed from the command line)
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/ipfs/py-ipfs/issues/7#issuecomment-146567982.
@BrendanBenshoof Absolutely. I do all my development from CLI on my laptop, so I'll need that myself.
Not sure about your PyCharm thing, I don't know what the .idea
contains. But just keep it optional, let everyone use the IDE / editor they want, I propose our only common standardisation point to be the PEP8, and it should be "enough" standard ?
Fair enough. .idea
basically just contains configs for running tests from within the IDE, which is nice for those who don't like to have more than their IDE open. I personally would be OK with not including them, since as @BrendanBenshoof says, testing should always work without extra tools.
Still don't exactly know what is inside the .idea
, but, if it helps those with a set of IDE without impairing others, I'm not 100% against it, so, same as @BrendanBenshoof here.
I live in vi and I imagine many others do, but if the .idea
isn't large let's go ahead and add it. Alternatively, we could keep an ipfs URI for it around :)
@mvanveen That's a much better idea, actually. I'd be happy to go with that.
Should we include .idea/ for PyCharm? I use PyCharm extensively on my desktop dev machine, and I think it would make the process of onboarding new developers easier if we had a .idea/ project directory already set up with execution settings for tests, etc. already set up. Otherwise, we will end up with a lot of duplication of work.