I've mentioned the deprecated methods in my reply to Vincent. I'll
restore two instances which can be handled later. At least one is kind
of important as long as I haven't done a Barcode4J 2.1 release (which is
long overdue).

Do I understand you correctly, Simon, that you're OK to leave the CS
comments for now and revisit later? I could live with that, too. If I
read Vincent and Chris correctly, they are not absolutely against having
the CS comments for now although they are not at all happy about them.
Please correct me if I got that wrong! Removing them later is always a
possibility. I'm not too happy to disregard a majority opinion
especially since Glenn is not yet a committer. But I guess leaving the
CS comments for now allows us to continue and we can still reduce (or
get rid of) the CS comments later.

I know I'm currently behaving like a flag in the wind but I'm really a
bit clueless what the best way is since we do not have a consensus right
now. But I'd like to continue here as quickly as possible. I didn't get
to handle the patch today due to a support request (FOP go boom with PDF
sizes over 2GB). But the weather doesn't look to good here during the
weekend so I may be able to get this done tomorrow.

On 13.08.2010 14:40:55 Simon Pepping wrote:
> 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

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to