You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com> on 2005/08/22 22:15:29 UTC
Thoughts on Checkstyle stuff
Hi all,
I'm just trying to guage what the consensus is with regard to applying
Checkstyle fixes (yes, it's a bit of a strange itch perhaps, but it's
*my* itch! :) )...
I just submitted a batch (ticket #36306), and would like to resolve as
many more as possible, but I'd like to know what everyones' thinking is
with regard to when they will/should be applied... would I be putting in
a little too much effort if I'm trying to get them into the first 1.3
release? What I mean is, if everyone thinks they should be put off for
a later release then there's no need for me to bust my butt as much, I
can work a bit more leisurely on things :)
If however, folks think it would be better to get them applied sooner
than later, which is my belief frankly, any committer willing to do that
in the short term?
Just as a quick summary... I counted 4,760 Checkstyle complaints on the
current TRUNK, and the batch I just submitted resolves 1,462. Virtually
none of it alters actual code, in fact only 178 do and that was just to
break up lines longer than 80 characters, so I'd say these are
relatively benign fixes (and I'll state what should be assumed:
everything compiled fine for me and all unit tests passed). There's
still probably 2,000 more or so that would fall into that same
relatively "safe" category (lots of javadocs fixes for example) before I
even think about those that might require some actual thought/discussion :)
Thanks all!
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Thoughts on Checkstyle stuff
Posted by James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org>.
That's pretty close to a response I gave someone offlist. I basically
agreed that we should do it, but said that committing a bunch of formatting
changes tends to add a lot of noise in the history logs, so doing a release,
and realizing there is are a few small changes that might have been a
mistake makes looking at history (across the format commit) almost
impossible. The "well, let's see what it _used_ to do" becomes an exercise
in insanity.
All in all, it needs to be done. When? That's not my decision.
I'll let you take it from here.
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
EdgeTech, Inc.
http://www.edgetechservices.net/
678.910.8017
AIM: jmitchtx
MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
Skype: jmitchtx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Brown" <mr...@twdata.org>
To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Checkstyle stuff
> Sorry James, I missed this email as apparently Thunderbird thought it was
> junk :) I'm willing to take the time to apply this patch if you have no
> objection. While I'd like to think 1.3.0 is days away, past experience
> has shown "don't hold your breath". My first concern looking at the patch
> was converting from unix to dos style endlines, however, if some are one
> style and others another, it would at least be valuable to be consistent.
>
> The other concern is these changes might screw up existing patches that
> need to be applied, so perhaps we should save this patch until the last
> major bugs have been fixed. What do you think?
>
> Don
>
> James Mitchell wrote:
>> I saw the tread, but I haven't followed that discussion. I would rather
>> wait till after 1.3.0 is out there. If you can wait till things settle
>> down, I'd be happy to apply your fixes then. After all, the activity
>> may make your patches out of date and we would need to do it ourselves
>> or ask for help again.
>>
>> Ping me again after 1.3.0 is out and remind me to get on this. Thanks
>> man.
>>
>> --
>> James Mitchell
>> Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
>> Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
>> EdgeTech, Inc.
>> http://www.edgetechservices.net/
>> 678.910.8017
>> AIM: jmitchtx
>> Yahoo: jmitchtx
>> MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
>> Skype: jmitchtx
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone have a chance to look or think about this? I'd like to continue
>>> the work but I'd also like to know if folks are receptive to it or not.
>>>
>>> Maybe you were all just busier today than I was... I Unfortunately
>>> have a car that's getting ready to die any day now, so most of my time
>>> was spent leisurely comparing and running numbers all day :)
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I'm just trying to guage what the consensus is with regard to applying
>>>> Checkstyle fixes (yes, it's a bit of a strange itch perhaps, but it's
>>>> *my* itch! :) )...
>>>> I just submitted a batch (ticket #36306), and would like to resolve as
>>>> many more as possible, but I'd like to know what everyones' thinking
>>>> is with regard to when they will/should be applied... would I be
>>>> putting in a little too much effort if I'm trying to get them into the
>>>> first 1.3 release? What I mean is, if everyone thinks they should be
>>>> put off for a later release then there's no need for me to bust my
>>>> butt as much, I can work a bit more leisurely on things :)
>>>> If however, folks think it would be better to get them applied sooner
>>>> than later, which is my belief frankly, any committer willing to do
>>>> that in the short term?
>>>> Just as a quick summary... I counted 4,760 Checkstyle complaints on
>>>> the current TRUNK, and the batch I just submitted resolves 1,462.
>>>> Virtually none of it alters actual code, in fact only 178 do and that
>>>> was just to break up lines longer than 80 characters, so I'd say these
>>>> are relatively benign fixes (and I'll state what should be assumed:
>>>> everything compiled fine for me and all unit tests passed). There's
>>>> still probably 2,000 more or so that would fall into that same
>>>> relatively "safe" category (lots of javadocs fixes for example) before
>>>> I even think about those that might require some actual
>>>> thought/discussion :)
>>>> Thanks all!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Thoughts on Checkstyle stuff
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
Done. I also obsoleted the attachments and made a note that I will tackle
all the Checkstyle complaints when the 1.3 code base is deemed stable and
otherwise ready for release.
By the way, I don't mind looking at PMD stuff as well, and Jlint and
FindBugs too, at the same time... I think only PMD is also run by the
build IIRC? The only issue is that the majority of the Checkstyle fixes
will be relatively safe and benign, the things found by those other tools
may be somewhat risky and certainly will require discussion in many cases.
But, if anyone thinks its a good idea to use all four tools and address
as much as possible (I do), then I'll take it on as well.
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
On Wed, August 24, 2005 1:44 pm, Don Brown said:
> Works for me. If you could, mark the ticket LATER until then. Thanks,
>
> Don
>
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>> Perhaps I can make an offer here...
>>
>> At some point, I imagine, you guys (the committers) are all going to
>> agree
>> that the code is stable and ready for release. How about if at that
>> point, whenever it is, someone drops me a line and says "ok, have at it
>> with the Checkstyle stuff", and give me maybe a week let's say. Then I
>> can probably eliminate most or perhaps all of them in one shot, and that
>> might be easier to verify nothing gets broken in the process too.
>>
>> Does that sound reasonable?
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> On Wed, August 24, 2005 1:02 pm, Don Brown said:
>>
>>>Sorry James, I missed this email as apparently Thunderbird thought it
>>> was
>>>junk :) I'm willing to take the time to apply
>>>this patch if you have no objection. While I'd like to think 1.3.0 is
>>>days away, past experience has shown "don't hold
>>>your breath". My first concern looking at the patch was converting from
>>>unix to dos style endlines, however, if some
>>>are one style and others another, it would at least be valuable to be
>>>consistent.
>>>
>>>The other concern is these changes might screw up existing patches that
>>>need to be applied, so perhaps we should save
>>>this patch until the last major bugs have been fixed. What do you
>>> think?
>>>
>>>Don
>>>
>>>James Mitchell wrote:
>>>
>>>>I saw the tread, but I haven't followed that discussion. I would
>>>>rather wait till after 1.3.0 is out there. If you can wait till
>>>> things
>>>>settle down, I'd be happy to apply your fixes then. After all, the
>>>>activity may make your patches out of date and we would need to do it
>>>>ourselves or ask for help again.
>>>>
>>>>Ping me again after 1.3.0 is out and remind me to get on this. Thanks
>>>>man.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>James Mitchell
>>>>Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
>>>>Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
>>>>EdgeTech, Inc.
>>>>http://www.edgetechservices.net/
>>>>678.910.8017
>>>>AIM: jmitchtx
>>>>Yahoo: jmitchtx
>>>>MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
>>>>Skype: jmitchtx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anyone have a chance to look or think about this? I'd like to
>>>>>continue the work but I'd also like to know if folks are receptive to
>>>>>it or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe you were all just busier today than I was... I Unfortunately
>>>>>have a car that's getting ready to die any day now, so most of my
>>>>>time was spent leisurely comparing and running numbers all day :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Frank
>>>>>
>>>>>Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>>>I'm just trying to guage what the consensus is with regard to
>>>>>>applying Checkstyle fixes (yes, it's a bit of a strange itch
>>>>>>perhaps, but it's *my* itch! :) )...
>>>>>>I just submitted a batch (ticket #36306), and would like to resolve
>>>>>>as many more as possible, but I'd like to know what everyones'
>>>>>>thinking is with regard to when they will/should be applied... would
>>>>>>I be putting in a little too much effort if I'm trying to get them
>>>>>>into the first 1.3 release? What I mean is, if everyone thinks they
>>>>>>should be put off for a later release then there's no need for me to
>>>>>>bust my butt as much, I can work a bit more leisurely on things :)
>>>>>>If however, folks think it would be better to get them applied
>>>>>>sooner than later, which is my belief frankly, any committer willing
>>>>>>to do that in the short term?
>>>>>>Just as a quick summary... I counted 4,760 Checkstyle complaints on
>>>>>>the current TRUNK, and the batch I just submitted resolves 1,462.
>>>>>>Virtually none of it alters actual code, in fact only 178 do and
>>>>>>that was just to break up lines longer than 80 characters, so I'd
>>>>>>say these are relatively benign fixes (and I'll state what should be
>>>>>>assumed: everything compiled fine for me and all unit tests
>>>>>>passed). There's still probably 2,000 more or so that would fall
>>>>>>into that same relatively "safe" category (lots of javadocs fixes
>>>>>>for example) before I even think about those that might require some
>>>>>>actual thought/discussion :)
>>>>>>Thanks all!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Thoughts on Checkstyle stuff
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Works for me. If you could, mark the ticket LATER until then. Thanks,
Don
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> Perhaps I can make an offer here...
>
> At some point, I imagine, you guys (the committers) are all going to agree
> that the code is stable and ready for release. How about if at that
> point, whenever it is, someone drops me a line and says "ok, have at it
> with the Checkstyle stuff", and give me maybe a week let's say. Then I
> can probably eliminate most or perhaps all of them in one shot, and that
> might be easier to verify nothing gets broken in the process too.
>
> Does that sound reasonable?
>
> Frank
>
> On Wed, August 24, 2005 1:02 pm, Don Brown said:
>
>>Sorry James, I missed this email as apparently Thunderbird thought it was
>>junk :) I'm willing to take the time to apply
>>this patch if you have no objection. While I'd like to think 1.3.0 is
>>days away, past experience has shown "don't hold
>>your breath". My first concern looking at the patch was converting from
>>unix to dos style endlines, however, if some
>>are one style and others another, it would at least be valuable to be
>>consistent.
>>
>>The other concern is these changes might screw up existing patches that
>>need to be applied, so perhaps we should save
>>this patch until the last major bugs have been fixed. What do you think?
>>
>>Don
>>
>>James Mitchell wrote:
>>
>>>I saw the tread, but I haven't followed that discussion. I would
>>>rather wait till after 1.3.0 is out there. If you can wait till things
>>>settle down, I'd be happy to apply your fixes then. After all, the
>>>activity may make your patches out of date and we would need to do it
>>>ourselves or ask for help again.
>>>
>>>Ping me again after 1.3.0 is out and remind me to get on this. Thanks
>>>man.
>>>
>>>--
>>>James Mitchell
>>>Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
>>>Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
>>>EdgeTech, Inc.
>>>http://www.edgetechservices.net/
>>>678.910.8017
>>>AIM: jmitchtx
>>>Yahoo: jmitchtx
>>>MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
>>>Skype: jmitchtx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyone have a chance to look or think about this? I'd like to
>>>>continue the work but I'd also like to know if folks are receptive to
>>>>it or not.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe you were all just busier today than I was... I Unfortunately
>>>>have a car that's getting ready to die any day now, so most of my
>>>>time was spent leisurely comparing and running numbers all day :)
>>>>
>>>>Frank
>>>>
>>>>Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>>I'm just trying to guage what the consensus is with regard to
>>>>>applying Checkstyle fixes (yes, it's a bit of a strange itch
>>>>>perhaps, but it's *my* itch! :) )...
>>>>>I just submitted a batch (ticket #36306), and would like to resolve
>>>>>as many more as possible, but I'd like to know what everyones'
>>>>>thinking is with regard to when they will/should be applied... would
>>>>>I be putting in a little too much effort if I'm trying to get them
>>>>>into the first 1.3 release? What I mean is, if everyone thinks they
>>>>>should be put off for a later release then there's no need for me to
>>>>>bust my butt as much, I can work a bit more leisurely on things :)
>>>>>If however, folks think it would be better to get them applied
>>>>>sooner than later, which is my belief frankly, any committer willing
>>>>>to do that in the short term?
>>>>>Just as a quick summary... I counted 4,760 Checkstyle complaints on
>>>>>the current TRUNK, and the batch I just submitted resolves 1,462.
>>>>>Virtually none of it alters actual code, in fact only 178 do and
>>>>>that was just to break up lines longer than 80 characters, so I'd
>>>>>say these are relatively benign fixes (and I'll state what should be
>>>>>assumed: everything compiled fine for me and all unit tests
>>>>>passed). There's still probably 2,000 more or so that would fall
>>>>>into that same relatively "safe" category (lots of javadocs fixes
>>>>>for example) before I even think about those that might require some
>>>>>actual thought/discussion :)
>>>>>Thanks all!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Thoughts on Checkstyle stuff
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 8/24/05, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> Perhaps I can make an offer here...
>
> At some point, I imagine, you guys (the committers) are all going to agree
> that the code is stable and ready for release. How about if at that
> point, whenever it is, someone drops me a line and says "ok, have at it
> with the Checkstyle stuff", and give me maybe a week let's say. Then I
> can probably eliminate most or perhaps all of them in one shot, and that
> might be easier to verify nothing gets broken in the process too.
>
> Does that sound reasonable?
What happens is the release manager rolls a distribution, and then the
PMC decides if it is fit to release.
For the 1.3.x series, the issue would be the patches. Before making
any (more) drastic changes to the code, we should either apply to
decide not to apply any outstanding patches. There's a link to the
tickets with known patches on the RoadMap page,
* http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Thoughts on Checkstyle stuff
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
Perhaps I can make an offer here...
At some point, I imagine, you guys (the committers) are all going to agree
that the code is stable and ready for release. How about if at that
point, whenever it is, someone drops me a line and says "ok, have at it
with the Checkstyle stuff", and give me maybe a week let's say. Then I
can probably eliminate most or perhaps all of them in one shot, and that
might be easier to verify nothing gets broken in the process too.
Does that sound reasonable?
Frank
On Wed, August 24, 2005 1:02 pm, Don Brown said:
> Sorry James, I missed this email as apparently Thunderbird thought it was
> junk :) I'm willing to take the time to apply
> this patch if you have no objection. While I'd like to think 1.3.0 is
> days away, past experience has shown "don't hold
> your breath". My first concern looking at the patch was converting from
> unix to dos style endlines, however, if some
> are one style and others another, it would at least be valuable to be
> consistent.
>
> The other concern is these changes might screw up existing patches that
> need to be applied, so perhaps we should save
> this patch until the last major bugs have been fixed. What do you think?
>
> Don
>
> James Mitchell wrote:
>> I saw the tread, but I haven't followed that discussion. I would
>> rather wait till after 1.3.0 is out there. If you can wait till things
>> settle down, I'd be happy to apply your fixes then. After all, the
>> activity may make your patches out of date and we would need to do it
>> ourselves or ask for help again.
>>
>> Ping me again after 1.3.0 is out and remind me to get on this. Thanks
>> man.
>>
>> --
>> James Mitchell
>> Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
>> Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
>> EdgeTech, Inc.
>> http://www.edgetechservices.net/
>> 678.910.8017
>> AIM: jmitchtx
>> Yahoo: jmitchtx
>> MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
>> Skype: jmitchtx
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone have a chance to look or think about this? I'd like to
>>> continue the work but I'd also like to know if folks are receptive to
>>> it or not.
>>>
>>> Maybe you were all just busier today than I was... I Unfortunately
>>> have a car that's getting ready to die any day now, so most of my
>>> time was spent leisurely comparing and running numbers all day :)
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I'm just trying to guage what the consensus is with regard to
>>>> applying Checkstyle fixes (yes, it's a bit of a strange itch
>>>> perhaps, but it's *my* itch! :) )...
>>>> I just submitted a batch (ticket #36306), and would like to resolve
>>>> as many more as possible, but I'd like to know what everyones'
>>>> thinking is with regard to when they will/should be applied... would
>>>> I be putting in a little too much effort if I'm trying to get them
>>>> into the first 1.3 release? What I mean is, if everyone thinks they
>>>> should be put off for a later release then there's no need for me to
>>>> bust my butt as much, I can work a bit more leisurely on things :)
>>>> If however, folks think it would be better to get them applied
>>>> sooner than later, which is my belief frankly, any committer willing
>>>> to do that in the short term?
>>>> Just as a quick summary... I counted 4,760 Checkstyle complaints on
>>>> the current TRUNK, and the batch I just submitted resolves 1,462.
>>>> Virtually none of it alters actual code, in fact only 178 do and
>>>> that was just to break up lines longer than 80 characters, so I'd
>>>> say these are relatively benign fixes (and I'll state what should be
>>>> assumed: everything compiled fine for me and all unit tests
>>>> passed). There's still probably 2,000 more or so that would fall
>>>> into that same relatively "safe" category (lots of javadocs fixes
>>>> for example) before I even think about those that might require some
>>>> actual thought/discussion :)
>>>> Thanks all!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Thoughts on Checkstyle stuff
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Sorry James, I missed this email as apparently Thunderbird thought it was junk :) I'm willing to take the time to apply
this patch if you have no objection. While I'd like to think 1.3.0 is days away, past experience has shown "don't hold
your breath". My first concern looking at the patch was converting from unix to dos style endlines, however, if some
are one style and others another, it would at least be valuable to be consistent.
The other concern is these changes might screw up existing patches that need to be applied, so perhaps we should save
this patch until the last major bugs have been fixed. What do you think?
Don
James Mitchell wrote:
> I saw the tread, but I haven't followed that discussion. I would
> rather wait till after 1.3.0 is out there. If you can wait till things
> settle down, I'd be happy to apply your fixes then. After all, the
> activity may make your patches out of date and we would need to do it
> ourselves or ask for help again.
>
> Ping me again after 1.3.0 is out and remind me to get on this. Thanks
> man.
>
> --
> James Mitchell
> Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
> Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
> EdgeTech, Inc.
> http://www.edgetechservices.net/
> 678.910.8017
> AIM: jmitchtx
> Yahoo: jmitchtx
> MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
> Skype: jmitchtx
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>
>> Anyone have a chance to look or think about this? I'd like to
>> continue the work but I'd also like to know if folks are receptive to
>> it or not.
>>
>> Maybe you were all just busier today than I was... I Unfortunately
>> have a car that's getting ready to die any day now, so most of my
>> time was spent leisurely comparing and running numbers all day :)
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I'm just trying to guage what the consensus is with regard to
>>> applying Checkstyle fixes (yes, it's a bit of a strange itch
>>> perhaps, but it's *my* itch! :) )...
>>> I just submitted a batch (ticket #36306), and would like to resolve
>>> as many more as possible, but I'd like to know what everyones'
>>> thinking is with regard to when they will/should be applied... would
>>> I be putting in a little too much effort if I'm trying to get them
>>> into the first 1.3 release? What I mean is, if everyone thinks they
>>> should be put off for a later release then there's no need for me to
>>> bust my butt as much, I can work a bit more leisurely on things :)
>>> If however, folks think it would be better to get them applied
>>> sooner than later, which is my belief frankly, any committer willing
>>> to do that in the short term?
>>> Just as a quick summary... I counted 4,760 Checkstyle complaints on
>>> the current TRUNK, and the batch I just submitted resolves 1,462.
>>> Virtually none of it alters actual code, in fact only 178 do and
>>> that was just to break up lines longer than 80 characters, so I'd
>>> say these are relatively benign fixes (and I'll state what should be
>>> assumed: everything compiled fine for me and all unit tests
>>> passed). There's still probably 2,000 more or so that would fall
>>> into that same relatively "safe" category (lots of javadocs fixes
>>> for example) before I even think about those that might require some
>>> actual thought/discussion :)
>>> Thanks all!
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Thoughts on Checkstyle stuff
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
Hi James,
I see this as an ongoing task... the types of things that Checkstyle
raises are the types of things that tend to creep in continually, for
various reasons, even moreso with a community-driven project like Struts.
That being said, I think there is value in getting what is there now taken
care of sooner rather than later. Waiting will only result in more issues
showing up in the reports down the road, and that will tend, I think, to
dissuade anyone from resolving them. It would be easier for these things
to never be addressed. Let's face it, it's not what I would consider
glamorous work :)
That too being said, I don't mind volunteering as the "Checkstyle Police",
so to speak, ongoing, and try and get it all taken care of. But the
sooner they can start being applied, the better. I don't think this is
the type of stuff that would impact a 1.3 release either way, but I do
think getting as many of these issues resolved before a next release has
more value than waiting. That's just my opinion. I don't want to speak
for Don here, but his last comment on the ticket would seem to indicate he
may agree with this (hope I'm not reading *too* much into it Don :) ).
Frank
On Wed, August 24, 2005 8:45 am, James Mitchell said:
> I saw the tread, but I haven't followed that discussion. I would
> rather wait till after 1.3.0 is out there. If you can wait till
> things settle down, I'd be happy to apply your fixes then. After
> all, the activity may make your patches out of date and we would need
> to do it ourselves or ask for help again.
>
> Ping me again after 1.3.0 is out and remind me to get on this.
> Thanks man.
>
> --
> James Mitchell
> Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
> Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
> EdgeTech, Inc.
> http://www.edgetechservices.net/
> 678.910.8017
> AIM: jmitchtx
> Yahoo: jmitchtx
> MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
> Skype: jmitchtx
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>
>> Anyone have a chance to look or think about this? I'd like to
>> continue the work but I'd also like to know if folks are receptive
>> to it or not.
>>
>> Maybe you were all just busier today than I was... I Unfortunately
>> have a car that's getting ready to die any day now, so most of my
>> time was spent leisurely comparing and running numbers all day :)
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I'm just trying to guage what the consensus is with regard to
>>> applying Checkstyle fixes (yes, it's a bit of a strange itch
>>> perhaps, but it's *my* itch! :) )...
>>> I just submitted a batch (ticket #36306), and would like to
>>> resolve as many more as possible, but I'd like to know what
>>> everyones' thinking is with regard to when they will/should be
>>> applied... would I be putting in a little too much effort if I'm
>>> trying to get them into the first 1.3 release? What I mean is, if
>>> everyone thinks they should be put off for a later release then
>>> there's no need for me to bust my butt as much, I can work a bit
>>> more leisurely on things :)
>>> If however, folks think it would be better to get them applied
>>> sooner than later, which is my belief frankly, any committer
>>> willing to do that in the short term?
>>> Just as a quick summary... I counted 4,760 Checkstyle complaints
>>> on the current TRUNK, and the batch I just submitted resolves
>>> 1,462. Virtually none of it alters actual code, in fact only 178
>>> do and that was just to break up lines longer than 80 characters,
>>> so I'd say these are relatively benign fixes (and I'll state what
>>> should be assumed: everything compiled fine for me and all unit
>>> tests passed). There's still probably 2,000 more or so that would
>>> fall into that same relatively "safe" category (lots of javadocs
>>> fixes for example) before I even think about those that might
>>> require some actual thought/discussion :)
>>> Thanks all!
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Thoughts on Checkstyle stuff
Posted by James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org>.
I saw the tread, but I haven't followed that discussion. I would
rather wait till after 1.3.0 is out there. If you can wait till
things settle down, I'd be happy to apply your fixes then. After
all, the activity may make your patches out of date and we would need
to do it ourselves or ask for help again.
Ping me again after 1.3.0 is out and remind me to get on this.
Thanks man.
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance
EdgeTech, Inc.
http://www.edgetechservices.net/
678.910.8017
AIM: jmitchtx
Yahoo: jmitchtx
MSN: jmitchell@apache.org
Skype: jmitchtx
On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> Anyone have a chance to look or think about this? I'd like to
> continue the work but I'd also like to know if folks are receptive
> to it or not.
>
> Maybe you were all just busier today than I was... I Unfortunately
> have a car that's getting ready to die any day now, so most of my
> time was spent leisurely comparing and running numbers all day :)
>
> Frank
>
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> I'm just trying to guage what the consensus is with regard to
>> applying Checkstyle fixes (yes, it's a bit of a strange itch
>> perhaps, but it's *my* itch! :) )...
>> I just submitted a batch (ticket #36306), and would like to
>> resolve as many more as possible, but I'd like to know what
>> everyones' thinking is with regard to when they will/should be
>> applied... would I be putting in a little too much effort if I'm
>> trying to get them into the first 1.3 release? What I mean is, if
>> everyone thinks they should be put off for a later release then
>> there's no need for me to bust my butt as much, I can work a bit
>> more leisurely on things :)
>> If however, folks think it would be better to get them applied
>> sooner than later, which is my belief frankly, any committer
>> willing to do that in the short term?
>> Just as a quick summary... I counted 4,760 Checkstyle complaints
>> on the current TRUNK, and the batch I just submitted resolves
>> 1,462. Virtually none of it alters actual code, in fact only 178
>> do and that was just to break up lines longer than 80 characters,
>> so I'd say these are relatively benign fixes (and I'll state what
>> should be assumed: everything compiled fine for me and all unit
>> tests passed). There's still probably 2,000 more or so that would
>> fall into that same relatively "safe" category (lots of javadocs
>> fixes for example) before I even think about those that might
>> require some actual thought/discussion :)
>> Thanks all!
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Thoughts on Checkstyle stuff
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
Anyone have a chance to look or think about this? I'd like to continue
the work but I'd also like to know if folks are receptive to it or not.
Maybe you were all just busier today than I was... I Unfortunately have
a car that's getting ready to die any day now, so most of my time was
spent leisurely comparing and running numbers all day :)
Frank
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm just trying to guage what the consensus is with regard to applying
> Checkstyle fixes (yes, it's a bit of a strange itch perhaps, but it's
> *my* itch! :) )...
>
> I just submitted a batch (ticket #36306), and would like to resolve as
> many more as possible, but I'd like to know what everyones' thinking is
> with regard to when they will/should be applied... would I be putting in
> a little too much effort if I'm trying to get them into the first 1.3
> release? What I mean is, if everyone thinks they should be put off for
> a later release then there's no need for me to bust my butt as much, I
> can work a bit more leisurely on things :)
>
> If however, folks think it would be better to get them applied sooner
> than later, which is my belief frankly, any committer willing to do that
> in the short term?
>
> Just as a quick summary... I counted 4,760 Checkstyle complaints on the
> current TRUNK, and the batch I just submitted resolves 1,462. Virtually
> none of it alters actual code, in fact only 178 do and that was just to
> break up lines longer than 80 characters, so I'd say these are
> relatively benign fixes (and I'll state what should be assumed:
> everything compiled fine for me and all unit tests passed). There's
> still probably 2,000 more or so that would fall into that same
> relatively "safe" category (lots of javadocs fixes for example) before I
> even think about those that might require some actual thought/discussion :)
>
> Thanks all!
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org