Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Hi All,
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,
Thanks for providing your view. So we have a similar view.
This gives me another shove in the butt to finally make the B4J 2.1
release. JEuclid should already be fine. I've seen that Max has already
switched to the other method. So, we can easily remove the deprecate
method before the next release
I want to move forward with Glenn's work. As you wrote, it is an
important addition to FOP which we cannot let go unused.
I feel that the CHECKSTYLE comments are clear, and allow us to take
any action later that we require. They could be harmful if we would
feel that further work would have to be
Thanks for the idea. But I'm not sure if that creates too much fuzz when
merging changes. What do the others think?
On 13.08.2010 14:47:42 Georg Datterl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What if the CS* comments are removed in trunk, so the committers are
> happy, but accepted in the branch, so Glenn can work as
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
com
2010 14:41
An: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [Bug 49733] [PATCH] resolve compilation, checkstyle, javadoc
warnings (a proposal for next steps)
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 fo
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
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Simon Pepping wrote:
>
> Glenn notes that he used comments to suppress checkstyle warnings in
> such cases as:
>
> - certain uses of package, protected, or public visibility of fields,
> which would have required a fairly large number of changes to substitute
> cal
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 02:25:33PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Hi,
I have returned and read the discussions. I have the following
remarks:
Building fop with jdk 1.4, as required, gives an error when
checkstyle-all-5.0.jar is present. The major.minor version 49.0 is not
supported. Thus removing
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> 3. Adjust the Checkstyle profile to allow "log" and disallow whitespace
>> before and after parantheses. Then remove "log"-related //CS constants
>> and excessive whitespace.
>>
>
> I would not agree to restricting the style rules to prohibit
inline
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>
> 1. Clarify the thing with LineBreak*.
>
It was necessary to update the line break data in order to regenerate
LineBreakUtils.java; otherwise, the generation process failed to to a
missing column ('CP') when it attempts to pull do
Thanks, Vincent.
On 12.08.2010 18:31:50 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > I've now applied the patch locally and done a detailed review. I'm
> > posting this a bit outside the context of recent discussions to simply
> > state my present opinion after looking into the p
Hi,
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> I've now applied the patch locally and done a detailed review. I'm
> posting this a bit outside the context of recent discussions to simply
> state my present opinion after looking into the patch.
>
> Generally, this is a big improvement. So thanks, Glenn, for your wo
I've now applied the patch locally and done a detailed review. I'm
posting this a bit outside the context of recent discussions to simply
state my present opinion after looking into the patch.
Generally, this is a big improvement. So thanks, Glenn, for your work
here!
I'm also not particularly ha
14 matches
Mail list logo