On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 03:49:17 GMT, Phil Race <p...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Heh, I did not notice that. >> >> I'd still argue that this is a useful change. If some other file were ever >> to be added, it will not be covered by the blanked disabled warnings, and -- >> perhaps more important -- it is clear that these warnings can be addressed >> just by looking at a single file. This information has drastically increased >> the likelihood that a developer picks up the issue and actually resolves the >> warnings, as we have seen in other areas where I've done this >> "warnings-per-file" transition. > > I suspect there's already a "fix disabled warnings in jdk.accessibility" .. > can't we just fix that instead ? > I found it : https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8074847 > Let me see what I can do about it. but I'll approve this anyway .. no harm ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10788
