Hi Alexander, Alexander Kiel wrote: > Hi Vincent, > >> Should the rule be disabled because of that? Having proper javadoc on at >> least public methods is very important. OTOH, this is actually not >> something Checkstyle can verify. How many methods in the code base have >> totally useless comments that are there just to avoid a Checkstyle >> warning... >> >> I think I’d prefer to keep the rule, but wouldn’t veto its removal. > > I don't vote for removal too, I only vote for the right to violate it in > cases one can't add any useful information in the comment.
Hmmm, I think that once we’ve agreed on a Checkstyle config we really want to follow, we won’t accept any warning at all. It was my intent to propose that anyway. I think it’s more annoying to have little yellow exclamation marks attached to every file that contains Checkstyle warnings (in Eclipse, at least), than have dull javadoc comments. Vincent
