On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 12:05:44PM -0400, John Burwell wrote: > Prasanna, > > I don't think a small namespace will deliver much value. We are responsible > for maintaining the code base -- even the older code that will eventually be > replaced. I would prefer to start with a smaller set of rules focused on > high priority issues (e.g. lack of proper equals, hashCode, and toString > implementations), fix them across the entire codebase, and then expand the > rule set. Wash, rinse, repeat until we have a complete rule set and a > compliant code base. > > Thanks, > -John
Same goal / different paths... FWIW, I'm with John. However, someone needs to propose the initial set of rules. > > On Jun 29, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Prasanna Santhanam <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:45:02PM -0400, John Burwell wrote: > >> Prasanna, > >> > >> I am all for static analysis, but I think we should discuss it before > >> implementation to ensure that the community is in sync on the rules > >> and priority. I am of the belief that static analysis shouldn't check > >> for violations that we don't are worthy of breaking a build. However, > >> implementing such an approach would take a fair amount if coordination > >> and effort for (needed) cleanup. > > > > Sure - we can start with a small namespace, say > > org.apache.cloudstack.storage, and extend the envelope based on > > discussions. Makes sense? > > > >> > >> That's my $0.02, > >> -John > >> > > -- > > Prasanna., > > > > ------------------------ > > Powered by BigRock.com > > > >
