Well, I'm not a native English-speaker, so maybe my choice of the word "rant" was too much. Anyway, Glenn, we're not too far apart. I try to remove warnings whenever I change a class, i.e. gradual improvement as time allows. Sometimes CheckStyle would bark at something that I didn't consider a problem so I ignored it. That's why I mentioned that fine-tuning CheckStyle is probably a good thing. From time to time, people would fix a bunch of classes, but a thorough attempt such as yours hasn't happened, yet. So this is a chance for us and your work is definitely appreciated.
I don't think we've had any voice, yet, who said that fixing the issues was a bad idea. On 10.08.2010 14:46:28 Glenn Adams wrote: > my apologies if my statement appeared to be a "rant", as it was not intended > as such; > > perhaps my emphasis was an exaggeration, but if one goes through the trouble > to add build rules for style checking, bug finding, and code quality > reporting, then it does appear odd to ignore them, which was my reaction to > the current code base and vincent's response; > > i admit that i prefer a zero warning policy, and i have attempted at every > opportunity to introduce or enforce such policy on the many dev projects > I've managed or participated in over four decades; in general, i find it > helps me and other devs, particularly as a way of finding new noise we are > introducing; if there is already a lot of noise in the system, it is easy to > ignore new noise, which is precisely what i would like to avoid in my own > contributes: contributing to the noise level; > > note that i am not arguing for or against a specific set of policy rules, > just that whatever they are, they get implemented and enforced, while > knowing at the same time that every rule has exceptions, and that mechanisms > to provide filtering adequately address this point; furthermore, arguing > over which a particular exception is justified or not can become a great > waste of time; as I've stated previously, if a contributor or committer has > made the conscious choice to disable a warning, then I'm happy to accept > their judgement, as long as it is done in a thoughtful way, and not merely > as a way of ignoring rules; > > if the majority of committers feel it best not to patch these warnings and > move on from there, then i'll readily submit to that consensus; my hope, > however, is that this contribution can positively contribute to FOP and the > community, so it is natural that I would prefer it not be delayed for some > unknown process to create a "new consensus" on style rules; > > regards, > glenn > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Jeremias Maerki > <d...@jeremias-maerki.ch>wrote: > > > I kind of agree with Glenn that we have a de-facto agreement on the > > Checkstyle rules. We've adjusted them in the past and there's no reason > > why we can't change it in the future. If Glenn's patch gets the issue > > count down significantly so we can start to enforce the rules, then I'm > > fine with it. But I don't doubt that the checkstyle file may profit from > > some fine-tuning. > > > > Right now, I have a couple of things that I need to commit and I > > basically don't dare commit them as people may come screaming at me > > in that case. So I want this resolved quickly. Vincent, are going to > > process the patch? I have to do a few things first, but if you don't > > have a chance to handle it by then, I'll take a look myself. > > > > What I have a little problem with is Glenn's rant in the last paragraph. > > Some Apache project don't even have Checkstyle rules. Furthermore, > > having no Checkstyle issues doesn't equal high quality. High quality is > > the result of an open process of developing software (The Apache Way). > > There are no rules that we have to implement any particular technical > > measures. But I'm not saying that Checkstyle doesn't help improve > > quality. Then what is "high quality"? And we have to acknowledge that > > over time, many people with different skills and coding styles have been > > working on FOP and limited resources don't always allow the maximum > > possible. > > > > On 10.08.2010 13:13:08 Glenn Adams wrote: > > > Vincent, > > > > > > I disagree with your proposed delay. First, there is an established > > > consensus on the rules, namely those that are in the existing > > > checkstyle-5.0.xml file. The reason they are the current consensus is > > that > > > they are there in the trunk, and nobody has objected to them. I do not > > care > > > to object to them at this time, and merely applied them as they stand. > > > > > > I did nothing to change those rules in my patch, and saying that you wish > > to > > > effectively delay incorporating the patch until there is a consensus > > about > > > what is there already appears rather odd, if not counterproductive. > > > > > > What is most important overall is to eliminate all warnings. Period. As > > fast > > > as possible. My patch does that, so please commit it without delay. We > > can > > > then, over time, decide if the existing rules are overly conservative or > > > overly liberal. But that is not going to be a useful way to spend our > > time, > > > it is much better to just use what is there, and when something goes > > outside > > > of that set, there are adequate mechanisms to deal with it, which I > > > described in my patch. > > > > > > The alternative is to merely continue to propagate the current warnings. > > > Frankly, I was and am very surprised at the apparent lack of > > particularity > > > with respect to treatment of warnings. One of the six principles of "The > > > Apache Way" is "consistently high quality software". For me, every > > warning > > > is a black mark against quality. Let's not continue to propagate this > > state > > > of affairs. Now that FOP 1.0 has been released is the best time to move > > > forward, so why delay now? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Glenn > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:34 PM, <bugzi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49733 > > > > > > > > --- Comment #5 from Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com> > > 2010-08-10 > > > > 06:34:29 EDT --- > > > > Hi Glenn, > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch. However, as I said we need to agree on a > > > > project-wide > > > > Checkstyle configuration first. Before enforcing a no-warning policy it > > is > > > > necessary to reach consensus among all the developers on a set of rules > > > > that > > > > everyone is happy to follow. > > > > > > > > We'll have a look at your patch once this is done. Meanwhile, I'll look > > at > > > > the > > > > parts that fix compilation warnings. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Vincent > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Configure bugmail: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > > > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > > > > You reported the bug. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > > > Jeremias Maerki
