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
Possible accidental boolean assignment
e.g., if (a = b)
Boxing and unboxing conversions
Unused object allocation
Switch missing default case
Switch case fall through
Potential resource leak
Missing synchronized modifier on inherited
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.
Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>
Ian Skerrett <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"'Discussions about the IDE'" <ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Lars
Vogel'" <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Daniel Megert'"
12/09/2013 09:13 AM
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.
Eclipse developer at JBoss,
by Red Hat My
blog - My
ide-dev mailing list