I've mentioned the deprecated methods in my reply to Vincent. I'll restore two instances which can be handled later. At least one is kind of important as long as I haven't done a Barcode4J 2.1 release (which is long overdue).
Do I understand you correctly, Simon, that you're OK to leave the CS comments for now and revisit later? I could live with that, too. If I read Vincent and Chris correctly, they are not absolutely against having the CS comments for now although they are not at all happy about them. Please correct me if I got that wrong! Removing them later is always a possibility. I'm not too happy to disregard a majority opinion especially since Glenn is not yet a committer. But I guess leaving the CS comments for now allows us to continue and we can still reduce (or get rid of) the CS comments later. I know I'm currently behaving like a flag in the wind but I'm really a bit clueless what the best way is since we do not have a consensus right now. But I'd like to continue here as quickly as possible. I didn't get to handle the patch today due to a support request (FOP go boom with PDF sizes over 2GB). But the weather doesn't look to good here during the weekend so I may be able to get this done tomorrow. On 13.08.2010 14:40:55 Simon Pepping wrote: > Glenn, > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:07:52PM +0800, Glenn Adams wrote: > > In any case, we now appear to be at a juncture where one of the following > > options may be implemented: > > > > (1) leave the CS* comments in place, but DON'T change the checkstyle rules > > AT THIS TIME (but reserve option to change later) > > (2) remove the CS* comments, but DON'T change the checkstyle rules, leaving > > at least 279 warnings/errors to be produced; > > (3) remove the CS* comments, but DO change the checkstyle rules AT THIS TIME > > such that none of the CS* comments are required > > > > I prefer option #1. > > > > I cannot accept option #2, since it leaves a large number of reported > > warnings, thus negating my primary goal in creating this patch. > > > > I can live with option #3, although it requires editing around 100 files to > > remove the CS* comments. And it also requires modifying the checkstyle rule > > set, and in some cases removing or weakening potentially useful rules. > > I would prefer something like option #2, and so do a few other > committers. I understand this produces an unacceptable working mode > for you. I can live with that, and we can review the CHECKSTYLE > comments later in an effort to make further improvements. > > I would like to hear Jeremias' comment on the removal of the > deprecated methods. Deprecated methods are a fact of life. > > Simon > > -- > Simon Pepping > home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu Jeremias Maerki
