Hi Justin, The exercise with the Wiki was essentially for you to present a proposed set of Sonar rules. You did this, thank you.
It was not intended by me as [LAZY CONSENSUS]. Clearly there is healthy disagreement and consensus is not yet achieved. > On Jul 17, 2017, at 11:22 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: <snip> > > Would you not agree that some (if not all) of these need fixing? > >> A lot of the rules fly in the face to current convention in the SDK. > > Which ones in particular? You can see that a lot ion Flex Developers do not agree. Which ones is a good question, but keep in mind this will take time, and should not be forced. I think that the burden should be a discussion of a specific case. > >> Some (such as returning from a constructor) are actually enforced by the >> compiler so the rule is not needed. > > If that the case there no harm in having them on as there should be no > violations right? The harm can come as seen bellow. > >> Feel free to do what you want to SonarQube now, but don’t make any changes >> based on the reports. > > You are free to review any commits and I make and veto any them on their > technical merits. You are not free to revert any changes without discussion > or a veto. Everyone is free to scratch their own itch here and the tools you > use to find any issues should be irrelevant. Here we have the catch. Apache projects also operate by consensus and as volunteers. If one individual works against consensus and also takes peoples time away then problems arise with the community dynamic. RTC has been suggested precisely because it is one way to solve this issue. There are other ways. Consensus is very important please work on that aspect of this discussion. Thank you, Dave
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
