Ólafur Páll Geirsson

I tried to catch up on the discussion but it's not clear to me what is the exact goal here. > I'd like to see if we could work towards...

With Scala 3 out and with no plans for Scala 2.14 then I'd try to avoid complicating the existing cross-publishing schemes. I think it's OK for rules to report a...

@taisukeoe you may want to sync with @mlachkar on #998 I believe a good starting point regardless of approach would be to add 2.13 support for scalafix-core. I'm still open...

My current thinking is to never break binary compatibility. If we need a new api we can put it under the “scalafix.v2” package. I would prefer to avoid putting the...

I think it’s possible to aim for no publicly facing binary breaking changes between 0.9.x and 1.x so existing rules will continue to work unchanged.

The `scalafix.{v0,v1,v2,...}` convention isn't perfect. It both complicates public APIs (IDEs auto-complete the same name that appears in different versions) and you end up copy-pasting a fair amount of code...

I think it's OK to make these errors by default. I'm not if Scalafix should report any diagnostics as warnings by default, there should only be errors. We could give...

I think it’s ok to automatically handle IntegrationTest if possible but I think it’s OK to require manual settings for other configurations. I’m glad that sbt officially discourages configurations because...

@hepin1989 what is the resulting compile error? We can probably remove the right-hand side if it only references vals. We can try to reproduce what the compiler does

Aah yes :) that is a good test case! Thank you @marcelocenerine