On 3/16/2014 12:26 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > Would it be too much administrative @#!* to create an umbrella issue? > I'd suggest LUCENE-5130 for this purpose, except that I'm not 100% > positive that failing the build is the right answer. I fully understand > the motivation ... it would certainly force us to face the issue! > > A bunch of smaller issues could be created to tackle subsections of the > code, or perhaps to tackle a particular type of warning. This really > doesn't change how invasive the patches would be, but if they come in > smaller chunks, it might be easier to work around them. > > When it comes to warnings about things like missing serialVersionUID, > should we generate a random number for each class, or use a default value?
A further idea: We could limit this cleanup to trunk. I foresee three main effects, none of which seems like a bad thing to me: * We don't risk breaking the stable branch. * The cleanup might reveal actual bugs or clearly broken code. * Backporting gets harder, pushing us closer to the 5.0 release. Thanks, Shawn --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
