Well, for me it’s ok. Then I don’t have to create a new version in conf :).
> On 17 Sep 2015, at 14:17, Marcus Denker wrote:
>
>
>> On 17 Sep 2015, at 14:08, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
>>
>> Because people can choose in critic browser what they want to see. At least
>> this is my opinion. As a sne
> On 17 Sep 2015, at 14:08, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
>
> Because people can choose in critic browser what they want to see. At least
> this is my opinion. As a sneak peek to the survey results I can say that
> there are people who find the removed of “missing yourself” rule as a
> negative change
Because people can choose in critic browser what they want to see. At least
this is my opinion. As a sneak peek to the survey results I can say that there
are people who find the removed of “missing yourself” rule as a negative
change. Of course they are only a few of them, but as you are not ab
> On 17 Sep 2015, at 12:50, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
>
> Well, what I am saying is that I agree that people should not be bothered
> with this rule by QualityAssistant. But why we should remove the rule from
> the image?
>
Because it is wrong? If we keep it, people will see it when they use the C
Well, what I am saying is that I agree that people should not be bothered with
this rule by QualityAssistant. But why we should remove the rule from the image?
Uko
> On 17 Sep 2015, at 12:11, Christophe Demarey
> wrote:
>
> yes the problem with rules comes when the rule add more noise than
yes the problem with rules comes when the rule add more noise than is helpful.
If you do not want to remove this rule because it is useful in some cases,
maybe the rule could check only these specific situations to do not add noise
in others.
Le 17 sept. 2015 à 10:37, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit :
>
Ok, it can be removed from Pharo… I still find it useful as well as missing
yourself, but I can keep track of then individually :)
> On 17 Sep 2015, at 09:39, Peter Uhnák wrote:
>
> You can probably remove it directly from Pharo instead
> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/15858/review-rule-RBA
You can probably remove it directly from Pharo instead
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/15858/review-rule-RBAbstractClassRule
Peter
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
> Hi.
>
> First of all: thank you for the feedback Damien!
> It makes sense, the rule also has higher amount
Hi.
First of all: thank you for the feedback Damien!
It makes sense, the rule also has higher amount of negative feedback. I will
remove it from QA, let it stay in the image, it actually can be useful.
Uko
> On 17 Sep 2015, at 06:49, Damien Cassou wrote:
>
> This lint rule pops up all the ti
This lint rule pops up all the times and my code is always ok. I
typically have to reference an abstract class when:
- the abstract class takes care of choosing the concrete class to
instantiate
- the abstract class takes care of some shared variable for its
subclasses (e.g., a cache or an sh
10 matches
Mail list logo
