Another option is to have a small community of activists who are willing to comb the code and improve it without requiring everybody to catch all these issues.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > From my perspective, checkstyle.xml effectively represents our coding style > rules. I am fine with people making cosmetic changes that go beyond what is > specified in those checks, but I am -1 on requiring access to or specifying > usage of any specific IDE to ensure compliance with [math] coding standards. > > I am also fine with adding other static code analysis plugins such as > findbugs to point out potential bugs, as long as we maintain the associated > config files and uniformly either fix or manage exceptions. Here again, > tools need to be freely available and IDE-independent if we expect the > community to use them. >
