As before, I will generally not fix findbugs errors or warnings in contributions by other people. I will fix findbugs errors or warnings in code that I write, or code changes that I make.
Note that the use of the findbugs code analysis tool is not a policy of the FOP project, and that consequently FOP committers are not bound to use findbugs and fix its errors or warnings. Simon On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 04:57:57PM -0800, Glenn Adams wrote: > I think the existing exclusions should be left in trunk, and that no new > ones should be permitted in (or should be fixed immediately). If you do as > you suggest below, then the list of findbugs errors will just continue to > grow because nobody will pay attention to them. > > We are at a known, stable point, we do have some exclusions that we know > need fixing, and we can do that as time permits; but let's keep it that way > and not backpedal by allowing in new ones. > > G. > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Andreas Delmelle < > andreas.delme...@telenet.be> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > overnight. > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > Regards, > > > > Andreas > > --- > > > >