Hi,
Vote to fail fop on Jenkins if findbugs 2.0.3 finds a warning. The exclude
file has been updated so present warning types are excluded therefore more
controversial warnings are not enabled.
You would at minimum only maintain exclude file.
The vote will run for 7 days until 11 Sept.
Don't VOTES need to go on general@?
+1 from me.
Cheers!
Clay
--
"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness."
- HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 5:48 AM, "Simon Steiner"
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Vote to fail fop on Jenkins if findbugs 2.0.3 finds a warning. The exclude
>
Simon,
Could you revert this? Or I will. I'm in the process of cleaning up
findbugs warnings, and not yet finished. You need to give me a little time
to complete this work before changing the findbugs config. Feel free to use
a private copy of your own however in the meantime.
G.
On Thu, Sep 4,
-1 because I'm not ready for this due to still in progress making findbugs
clean up; you should coordinate in the future when you know someone else is
working on a config change of this sort
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Simon Steiner
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Vote to fail fop on Jenkins if findbu
Hi,
I don’t see how finishing the cleanup affects the vote. Im not aware of what
you are currently working on.
Thanks
From: Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com]
Sent: 04 September 2014 15:00
To: FOP Developers
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Enable findbugs
-1 because I'm not ready for this
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Simon Steiner
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I don’t see how finishing the cleanup affects the vote. Im not aware of
> what you are currently working on.
>
Perhaps you are not signed up for the email list that notifies we devs of
new commits in SVN? Because if you were, and
I also think that it’s too early to vote on this. I’m +1 with the idea
of enabling FindBugs in CI with a proper exclude file, but I believe
such a file doesn’t exist yet.
I suggest you provide a list of those bug patterns you would like to
exclude, so that we can discuss which ones are important
Hi,
Why not start with a lax exclude and evolve it over time. If you don’t enable
it now, you create more work since we will keep getting new warnings put in and
glens work increases.
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Vincent Hennebert [mailto:vhenneb...@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 September 20
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Simon Steiner
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why not start with a lax exclude and evolve it over time. If you don’t
> enable it now, you create more work since we will keep getting new warnings
> put in and glens work increases.
>
To summarize my current work. I basically threw
