This message lacks of courtesy, therefore I do not wish to continue the discussion.
I’ll proceed as I explained in my previous message. Or maybe it’s just me not being a native English speaker... Vincent Glenn Adams wrote: > Inline below. > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Vincent Hennebert > <vhenneb...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Suppressing all the warnings at build time is a great goal that I would >> love to see achieved eventually. This gives us an automatic way to spot >> violations introduced in new code, which is better than the informal >> check that developers do (or not...) before committing. But as I said >> trying to achieve that goal now is premature. >> >> > once again, i disagree with your reasoning; i heard unanimous support for > this patch from other commenters, your reticence does not seem warranted; > Jeremias and Simon have both stated their support for taking action to clean > up the code base; > > it is not premature to rid the codebase of warnings; in fact, one might > argue that it was premature to release FOP 1.0 with the existing warnings; > > >> More or less everyone agrees that the current checkstyle file is not >> satisfying. Jeremias says that he doesn’t apply some rules sometimes. >> I’ve done the same myself in a few occasions. So new warnings are bound >> to appear shortly after this patch is applied. >> >> > to translate lack of satisfaction with the current checkstyles to mean lack > of acceptance is unwarranted; there have been no objections to it as far as > I can tell, so it is effectively accepted; I haven't heard you or others > proposing any concrete chantes to it, so it is accepted by lazy consensus; > moreover, you appear to believe (wrongly in my opinion), that there could > exist some future checkstyle rules set that was uniformly satisfactory to > all; that will never happen, and for you to claim it should occur before > taking action is nothing more than an excuse to delay taking action; > > >> Once we agree on a new checkstyle file two things will happen: Some >> rules may be removed and that may result into clutter CSOK comments in >> the code; Are you happy to re-visit the code and remove them afterwards? >> Some new rules may be put in place and that will result into a whole >> bunch of new warnings, and we’re back to square one. >> >> Globally disabling some Checkstyle rules by using CSOFF comments is not >> an option to me. This kills the very purpose of a Checkstyle file, which >> is to have a consistent coding style within the project and no >> distracting variations. >> > > who said anything about using CSOFF to *globally* disable options? warning > suppression is a reasonable tool when used with appropriately, and > developers should be able to override rules as needed; the fact that the > comment remains in the code means it is easy to audit for these, and use > that information to evaluate divergence from norm and practice; > > >> We’ve been living with loads of Checkstyle warnings for years, now what >> is this sudden urge to wipe off them all? If the goal is to achieve and >> enforce zero warning, then I don’t think this is doable in the short >> term. If the goal is to improve the quality of the software, then >> I don’t see how putting unhelpful javadoc comments or even disabling >> Checkstyle in some places will allow to achieve that. >> >> > You say it is not doable in the short term, but it would take you no more > than five minutes to apply and commit this patch. Instead of offering > excuses, why don't you actually do something about it to help matters. > > As for improving quality, if you walk into a house that is infested with > fleas, do you stop to wonder at the quality of the furniture? FOP is > infested with fleas. Let's exterminate them and move on to other matters. Or > would you rather sit with them and scratch all day? > > >> Anyway, from the quick look I’ve had at the patch, there are a few >> things I don’t agree with: >> • some methods marked deprecated were removed: this can’t be done >> arbitrarily and must follow some policy. Maybe this is fine in the >> present case but that must be discussed first. >> > > why? what policy was followed to deprecate them in the first place? why were > methods marked deprecated and then no alternative provided? why were > deprecated methods left in place that are no longer referenced? if there are > deprecated methods that are no longer referenced or the code that references > them is dead code, then they can and should be removed? how is this > different than removing old unused renderers? is there a "policy" for > removing old renderers? let's not invoke "lack of policy" as an objection > when you independently take action as a committer yourself in cases that > lack policy... > > >> • the @deprecated annotations that were on some other methods were >> removed: there’s a reason why they were there, which is to warn >> developers that those methods shouldn’t be used in new code. If the >> @deprecated annotations must be removed, then they should at least be >> replaced with an appropriate warning in the Javadoc. >> > > methods should not be deprecated unless there is a documented and > implemented alternative; this was not the case in certain of these > deprecations; if you feel that a specific deprecation should stay in place, > then argue its case here; don't just use this as a broad brush to reject the > entire patch; > > >> • before removing checkstyle-4.0.xml we must make sure that all the >> developers are happy with upgrading their tools to Checkstyle 5. This >> will probably be the case but still, that should be done at least >> through lazy consensus. >> > > why? the existing checkstyle build rules had already been updated to refer > to CS 5 before this patch, so it is an unused and unneeded file; why wait to > remove dead files? > > >> I will have a closer look at the patch and will apply the >> non-contentious parts. The rest will need to be discussed first. >> > > I believe that is the wrong way to handle this patch. It should be applied > as a whole, then, once done, we can revisit specific issues, but only if > there is a viable reason to do so. > > >> I think rushing things will just go against the honourable goal of >> improving the quality of the software. >> >> > They say justice delayed is justice denied. The FOP code demands justice. > And so do prospective developers. You seem to be laying artificial hurdles > into the path of contributors who are trying to make valuable improvements. > Why would you do that? What is the benefit of delay? > > Regards, > Glenn >