>From the peanut gallery, I'd like to second Frank's statement in the spirit of "fixing broken windows."
- George Dinwiddie http://www.idiacomputing.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:58 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Cc: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: Thoughts on Checkstyle stuff > > > Hi James, > > I see this as an ongoing task... the types of things that > Checkstyle raises are the types of things that tend to creep > in continually, for various reasons, even moreso with a > community-driven project like Struts. > > That being said, I think there is value in getting what is > there now taken care of sooner rather than later. Waiting > will only result in more issues showing up in the reports > down the road, and that will tend, I think, to dissuade > anyone from resolving them. It would be easier for these > things to never be addressed. Let's face it, it's not what I > would consider glamorous work :) > > That too being said, I don't mind volunteering as the > "Checkstyle Police", so to speak, ongoing, and try and get it > all taken care of. But the sooner they can start being > applied, the better. I don't think this is the type of stuff > that would impact a 1.3 release either way, but I do think > getting as many of these issues resolved before a next > release has more value than waiting. That's just my opinion. > I don't want to speak for Don here, but his last comment on > the ticket would seem to indicate he may agree with this > (hope I'm not reading *too* much into it Don :) ). > > Frank > > On Wed, August 24, 2005 8:45 am, James Mitchell said: > > I saw the tread, but I haven't followed that discussion. I would > > rather wait till after 1.3.0 is out there. If you can wait till > > things settle down, I'd be happy to apply your fixes then. > After all, > > the activity may make your patches out of date and we would > need to do > > it ourselves or ask for help again. > > > > Ping me again after 1.3.0 is out and remind me to get on > this. Thanks > > man. > > > > -- > > James Mitchell > > Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist > > Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance > > EdgeTech, Inc. > > http://www.edgetechservices.net/ > > 678.910.8017 > > AIM: jmitchtx > > Yahoo: jmitchtx > > MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Skype: jmitchtx > > > > > > > > On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > > > >> Anyone have a chance to look or think about this? I'd like to > >> continue the work but I'd also like to know if folks are > receptive to > >> it or not. > >> > >> Maybe you were all just busier today than I was... I > Unfortunately > >> have a car that's getting ready to die any day now, so most of my > >> time was spent leisurely comparing and running numbers all day :) > >> > >> Frank > >> > >> Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> I'm just trying to guage what the consensus is with regard to > >>> applying Checkstyle fixes (yes, it's a bit of a strange itch > >>> perhaps, but it's *my* itch! :) )... I just submitted a batch > >>> (ticket #36306), and would like to resolve as many more > as possible, > >>> but I'd like to know what everyones' thinking is with > regard to when > >>> they will/should be applied... would I be putting in a little too > >>> much effort if I'm trying to get them into the first 1.3 > release? > >>> What I mean is, if everyone thinks they should be put off for a > >>> later release then there's no need for me to bust my butt > as much, I > >>> can work a bit more leisurely on things :) > >>> If however, folks think it would be better to get them applied > >>> sooner than later, which is my belief frankly, any committer > >>> willing to do that in the short term? > >>> Just as a quick summary... I counted 4,760 Checkstyle complaints > >>> on the current TRUNK, and the batch I just submitted resolves > >>> 1,462. Virtually none of it alters actual code, in fact only 178 > >>> do and that was just to break up lines longer than 80 characters, > >>> so I'd say these are relatively benign fixes (and I'll state what > >>> should be assumed: everything compiled fine for me and all unit > >>> tests passed). There's still probably 2,000 more or so that would > >>> fall into that same relatively "safe" category (lots of javadocs > >>> fixes for example) before I even think about those that might > >>> require some actual thought/discussion :) > >>> Thanks all! --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
