[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [ide-dev] Survey results
|
To move this thread closer towards action I filed https://bugs.eclipse.org/423639
I will add a few considerations from JDT/Core pov in a minute.
I will be happy to work on this issue, but, as mentioned several times before,
right now is the most inappropriate of all moments for additional JDT work.
So, if doing this "after March and before April" is good enough I'll do my best.
For those who think that this is just about flipping a handful of switches:
I anticipate *significant* work to become necessary in order to adjust our
60,000+ tests to new compiler results. We must find a balance between keeping
our tests stable and testing the behavior that will be shipped as the new default.
Apart from that, experience tells that agreement about more aggressive warnings
is difficult to achieve among the JDT team, but keep in mind: if any new defaults
annoy our users, it will be our team that will be blamed, so please bear with some
detailed discussion, but let's move it to the bug, OK?
cheers,
Stephan
On 12/09/2013 03:45 PM, John Arthorne wrote:
To be concrete, the survey talked about "Potential programming problems". In the Potential programming problems section, there are
currently only the following set to ignore by default:
Possible accidental boolean assignment e.g., if (a = b)
Boxing and unboxing conversions
Empty statement
Unused object allocation
Switch missing default case
Switch case fall through
Potential resource leak
Missing synchronized modifier on inherited method
Class overrides equals but not hashCode
For the most part these are pretty reasonable warnings, with possible exception of box/unbox which is warning about simply using a
feature of the Java language. Just be prepared that there is backlash *every* time we make a change that introduces warnings for
people - although at least in this case we have some data to back up the decision.
John
From: Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Ian Skerrett <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Discussions about the IDE'" <ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Lars Vogel'"
<lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Daniel Megert'" <daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 12/09/2013 09:13 AM
Subject: Re: [ide-dev] Survey results
Sent by: ide-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 12/09/2013 02:53 PM, Ian Skerrett wrote:
If you implement that change it will definitely annoy this minority.
And what about the majority?
Also, due to the nature of the change, my assumption is that a subset of people that said ‘yes’ did not appreciate the impact of the
change so when it is implemented they will wish they had voted ‘no’.
We've all reworked the question several times to make it explicit. I thought we've agreed the question was good enough so that we
could trust the outcome of the survey and turn it into a concrete action (Yes or No to all warnings). Why deciding to almost ignore
the vote now? Or why even asking the question if it's to ignore 65% of "Yes" ?
65% of people have expressed they'd like all warnings. We've discussed that the survey and reaction to results would also be a way
to encourage the community to give feedback. I think letting 35% of community decide of everything is not fair at all.
--
Mickael Istria
Eclipse developer at _JBoss, by Red Hat_ <http://www.jboss.org/tools>_
__My blog_ <http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com/>- _My Tweets_
<http://twitter.com/mickaelistria>_______________________________________________
ide-dev mailing list
ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ide-dev
_______________________________________________
ide-dev mailing list
ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ide-dev
