Github user PascalSchumacher commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/257
Required changes seem reasonable. I think we should give this a try.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If
Github user coveralls commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/257
[](https://coveralls.io/builds/10583740)
Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 94.565% when pulling
Github user coveralls commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/257
[](https://coveralls.io/builds/10583740)
Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 94.565% when pulling
Github user mureinik commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/257
Updated `checkstyle-suppressions.xml` with the missing license that caused
rat to fail in the CI.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user kinow commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/257
Checked pull request locally, build passes OK. The master branch checkstyle
report has 0 errors, in 154 files. This PR branch checkstyle report has 0
errors, in 331 files.
---
If your project
Github user kinow commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/257
Not sure about applying that to test sources. It's normal to apply it to
sources, but I must confess I'm less strict about issues in the tests. Normally
quite happy about having the tests. As
