On 8/8/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > List both of them? I can see where someone would want to push 36037 back > to 1.3.1, but I would think the CheckStyle changes should get done sooner > rather than later, if they are going to happen at all. Opinions?
Having gone through the Checkstyle errors myself fairly recently, I'm pretty sure there's nothing drastic showing up there, so I'd say fixing these would be a "nice to have" at best for 1.3.0. In other words, if someone has a real itch to apply patches to resolve these, that would be fine, but I'd hardly hold up a 1.3.0 until the Checkstyle report is clean. (Don't get me wrong - I hate to see Checkstyle / PMD / FindBugs warnings. But I'd also hate to deny our user base a 1.3.0 build just because we still have such warnings.) -- Martin Cooper > -- > Frank W. Zammetti > Founder and Chief Software Architect > Omnytex Technologies > http://www.omnytex.com > > On Mon, August 8, 2005 1:30 pm, Ted Husted said: > > Since the release plan for Classic130 contemplates a Classic131 > > release, I'll create a page for Classic131 tonight, and there we can > > start listing things like this. > > > > -Ted. > > > > On 8/8/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hello all, > >> > >> Just wanted to see if anyone had a chance to look at ticket #s 36037 and > >> 35956? The former is a patch to allow anchors and query string to be > >> appended to returned forwards, the later is my suggestions for updated > >> CheckStyle rules. > >> > >> I know the focus of the pending 1.3 release is getting bug reports dealt > >> with, so I can understand if everyone wants to push 36307 back to > >> another > >> release, assuming anyone agrees there is value to the change in the > >> first > >> place, although my hope is that it can be added for the 1.3 release > >> anyway > >> as I see the question asked fairly often, often enough to have created a > >> Wiki page for it, and I think a fair number of people would appreciate > >> the > >> capability. > >> > >> As for the CheckStyle changes, I personally would argue that addressing > >> as > >> many static code analysis issues as possible leads to more solid code, > >> and > >> hence I would actually view that as dealing with bugs, in a sense. I > >> wanted to submit some patches to get rid of as many of the CheckStyle > >> complaints as possible, but I'd like to know what the final rules file > >> will be before I really get into doing that. > >> > >> Thanks everyone! > >> > >> Frank > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > HTH, Ted. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
