No response to any of the posts in particular, just a general thought/proposal.

I can appreciate that the ComplexScripts branch requires a clean FB report so 
that Glenn is not continuously sent on a wild goose chase.
However, personally (and Vincent seems to agree), I do not favor 'blind' 
exclusions just to make the warnings go away. Following the same reasoning, we 
could define thousands of CheckStyle suppressions, instead of encouraging 
people to do it correctly.

I do not have a problem with looking into those issues, if no one else has the 
time and/or motivation, although that will not always happen _immediately_.

The general idea is good, but I am wondering, given the circumstances, if we 
had not better invert the approach: keep the warnings alive in trunk, and add 
exclusions for them only in the branch. 
That way, devs who are not involved in the branch but do use FB, will be 
constantly reminded that those issues should be looked into. For the 
maintainer(s) of the branch, if the exclusion is properly commented, it can 
serve as an indication that the warning originated in trunk and has nothing to 
do with their changes. Should a genuine bug result from it, and it turns out to 
hamper the development on the branch, it can then be raised as a priority issue 
on this list.

Ultimately, it is still a worthwhile goal to eliminate all of the warnings, but 
we also have to be realistic enough to admit that that will not happen 




Reply via email to