Some changes look good others look wrong evident by the failed builds. I think any proposed changes would be separate PRs and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. As for making it the default compiler, I think this would be a profile, disabled by default, at best at least until a time it can be massaged to where it works for this project.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 14:59 Roman Leventov <leventov...@gmail.com> wrote: > See https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/819. > > 1) Are there any objections to using error-prone compiler instead of > OpenJDK's javac compiler? > 2) Stephen raised the question, that Tinkerpop project may better use > another static analysis tool instead of error-prone. I have to answer that > no static analysis tool covers 100% of the errors found by any other tool, > so running more tools is always better. > 3) Stephen raised the question, what checks should be enabled. I believe > this is out of scope of the PR ( > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/819), > because it doesn't (and doesn't intent to) enable any more checks beyond > the default (= minimal) set of error patterns. More checks may or may not > be enabled in later PRs and that could be discussed separately. > -- Robert Dale
