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