On 6 Jun 2011, at 18:07, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote: > -1 for the moment on closing the issue. (not on removing the code) >> Please answer the above points carefully. > > I can of course remove the code, In understood the staement above as you not > explicitely not asking me to do so. The point is that it makes little > difference (apart from the couple of minutes needed for the revert): your -1 > is blocking further development. > > To your claim that I did not provide an explanation for my recent -1 to your > resolution of CLEREZZA-515: A -1 without technical reasons is not valid, I > provided 5 technical reasons with my -1. I refused to give further > explanations and enter discussion before you removed the compatibility and > api-description breaking patch. It took you more than a week to revert this > change, this was a serious impediment on using the code in trunk. > > May I ask you to be explicit: > > [ ] I stick to my -1, but I don't mind the code staying there as long as no > new code is added depending on it > [ ] I want the patch for CLEREZZA-540 reverted > [ ] I withdraw my -1
I have also provided ample technical reasons. But I am willing to look at your arguments (unlike your -1 on my code). The discussion seems to be evolving quite a lot. I want to look at this relation between JSR311 code and the If I may say: adding code quickly to ZZ and then closing issues quickly seems like a way to bypass scrutiny. Reviewing code as you mentioned recently in CLEREZZA-516 is a lot of work (indeed you asked me there to do more work refactoring things, to avoid you having to do such reviewing). I am sure you can make a branch, like my bblfish branch, and work on that in the mean time. I'll be looking at your criticism of my JSR311 points and your explanation for why you need this next. You should be happy that you get this free reviewing. Criticism is expensive to purchase. Henry Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
