Yes, you could set a low but effective bar and enforce that via build. And in fact checkstyle can be used to enforce licence so it becomes a superset of rat.
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr>wrote: > Le mardi 20 mai 2014 09:52:26 William Ferguson a écrit : > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr > >wrote: > > > > 1) Is there no automatic checkstyle verification as part of the > build? > > > > We > > > > use it in the android-maven-plugin and I though it was standard > practice > > > > across the Maven projects. > > > > > > it's only done on site generation, and you can simply ignore the result > > > does android-maven-plugin have more aggressive configuration? > > > > Yes. Std build fails unless it complies. > > > > IMO that's what you need since it is the developer committing code that > has > > the understanding necessary to provide the Javadoc comments. And > invariably > > it is the Javadoc comments that suffer. > ok, I see: like rat > > we never had courage to do so, feeling that this would be seen as a hurdle > to > contribution: the exact opposite of actual idea, that it would help > contributors to simply follow conventions locally before submitting patch > (and > avoid "people who know and care" take time to fix things as much as they > can) > > if you look at checkstyle report on every component, you'll see that there > are > many conventions not followed in general. > Perhaps if we chose a subset of conventions and made them active as > default, > this could be ok: I didn't really tried to do so and convince the team that > this could be more helpful than nasty > > Regards, > > Hervé > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
