[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7631?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15832566#comment-15832566
]
Mike Drob commented on LUCENE-7631:
-----------------------------------
bq. I am not sure if the warning exclusions are really needed, because we no
longer have the general -Xlint. But it's good to have them listed!
Yea, I like having them listed because it makes it easier to go back and look
at them and decide which ones to add.
I don't have access to an IBM jdk to check if that produces different output or
not. [~thetaphi] - do you think this is fine to commit or we should tackle more
work in this issue?
> Enforce javac warnings
> ----------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7631
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7631
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: general/build
> Reporter: Mike Drob
> Attachments: LUCENE-7631.patch
>
>
> Robert's comment on LUCENE-3973 suggested to take an incremental approach to
> static analysis and leverage the java compiler warnings. I think this is easy
> to do and is a reasonable change to make to protect the code base for the
> future.
> We currently have many fewer warnings than we did a year or two years ago and
> should ensure that we do not slide backwards.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
