Done. I also obsoleted the attachments and made a note that I will tackle all the Checkstyle complaints when the 1.3 code base is deemed stable and otherwise ready for release.
By the way, I don't mind looking at PMD stuff as well, and Jlint and FindBugs too, at the same time... I think only PMD is also run by the build IIRC? The only issue is that the majority of the Checkstyle fixes will be relatively safe and benign, the things found by those other tools may be somewhat risky and certainly will require discussion in many cases. But, if anyone thinks its a good idea to use all four tools and address as much as possible (I do), then I'll take it on as well. -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com On Wed, August 24, 2005 1:44 pm, Don Brown said: > Works for me. If you could, mark the ticket LATER until then. Thanks, > > Don > > Frank W. Zammetti wrote: >> Perhaps I can make an offer here... >> >> At some point, I imagine, you guys (the committers) are all going to >> agree >> that the code is stable and ready for release. How about if at that >> point, whenever it is, someone drops me a line and says "ok, have at it >> with the Checkstyle stuff", and give me maybe a week let's say. Then I >> can probably eliminate most or perhaps all of them in one shot, and that >> might be easier to verify nothing gets broken in the process too. >> >> Does that sound reasonable? >> >> Frank >> >> On Wed, August 24, 2005 1:02 pm, Don Brown said: >> >>>Sorry James, I missed this email as apparently Thunderbird thought it >>> was >>>junk :) I'm willing to take the time to apply >>>this patch if you have no objection. While I'd like to think 1.3.0 is >>>days away, past experience has shown "don't hold >>>your breath". My first concern looking at the patch was converting from >>>unix to dos style endlines, however, if some >>>are one style and others another, it would at least be valuable to be >>>consistent. >>> >>>The other concern is these changes might screw up existing patches that >>>need to be applied, so perhaps we should save >>>this patch until the last major bugs have been fixed. What do you >>> think? >>> >>>Don >>> >>>James Mitchell wrote: >>> >>>>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activity may make your patches out of date and we would need to do it 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] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>> >>> >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
