Am 05.03.2011 11:51, schrieb Dirk Stöcker:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Frederik Ramm wrote:
In my eyes the validator does not have a problem with one specific
check; it has an attitude problem. Until now I wasn't aware that it
was *your* attitude I was criticizing when I said so ;) but I think
the validator is nannying people too much, *especially* (and I checked
that before writing it) since it is enabled by default on a new install.
I asked some non-development users now and it seems there is an
understanding problem between the way developers and users view the
reports. I'm used to error, warning and info methods from a lot of
development tools like compilers. But it seems most users don't
understand a warning the same way. So probably we should find a better
way to explain this situation.
Yes, rethinking the "wording" of the message types and the messages
might be a very good idea.
E.g. "unknown relation type" (warning): If JOSM has no basis to judge if
something is right or wrong, this is no good basis to issue a warning,
this is certainly better an info like: "Sorry, I don't know the relation
type XY".
A different story would be a checker for obvious spelling mistakes:
"Warning: The relation type rout should probably be route" - and even
that should be cautiously done.
Regards, ULFL
P.S: I'm always fixing compiler warnings to avoid later problems, but
I've switched off the validator some time ago, as it was only a hassle
and no real help for me.
_______________________________________________
josm-dev mailing list
josm-dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
