So, to reduce the number of new warnings, are we then going to
standardize on JDK versions? i.e, we only build with JDK 8 build 192 and
JDK11 build 03, because changes in JDK can introduce warnings.
I'm all for reducing warnings, but they are warnings. Don't think we
need to error, or break on them.
-1 for break build on warnings.
--Udo
On 1/15/19 13:28, Dan Smith wrote:
Sounds good. +1 to failing the build if new warnings are introduced.
-Dan
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 12:59 PM Galen O'Sullivan <gosulli...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
I'm for failing CI on warnings. It would be nice to reduce or eliminate our
existing build warnings as well.
Thanks,
Galen
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 12:33 PM Peter Tran <pt...@pivotal.io> wrote:
Hello!
I've noticed that there is no mechanism in which we prevent new PRs from
introduce new build warnings. In our PR template we ask people to self
report that they have a "clean build" but nothing more to ensure we're
not
adding new warnings.
Has there been an initiative to address this in the past? Would it be too
restrictive if CI fails if new warnings are introduced in a PR?
Thanks
--
Peter Tran
