Glenn,

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:07:52PM +0800, Glenn Adams wrote:
> In any case, we now appear to be at a juncture where one of the following
> options may be implemented:
> 
> (1) leave the CS* comments in place, but DON'T change the checkstyle rules
> AT THIS TIME (but reserve option to change later)
> (2) remove the CS* comments, but DON'T change the checkstyle rules, leaving
> at least 279 warnings/errors to be produced;
> (3) remove the CS* comments, but DO change the checkstyle rules AT THIS TIME
> such that none of the CS* comments are required
> 
> I prefer option #1.
> 
> I cannot accept option #2, since it leaves a large number of reported
> warnings, thus negating my primary goal in creating this patch.
> 
> I can live with option #3, although it requires editing around 100 files to
> remove the CS* comments. And it also requires modifying the checkstyle rule
> set, and in some cases removing or weakening potentially useful rules.

I would prefer something like option #2, and so do a few other
committers. I understand this produces an unacceptable working mode
for you. I can live with that, and we can review the CHECKSTYLE
comments later in an effort to make further improvements.

I would like to hear Jeremias' comment on the removal of the
deprecated methods. Deprecated methods are a fact of life.

Simon

-- 
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu

Reply via email to