On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Tsuyoshi Ito <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Henry, hi Reto > > Can I remind you that we are working towards a release and IMO we should > not > change APIs anymore. Your are now discussing over 2 weeks about the > GraphNodeProvider and IMO your discussion isn't very constructive. > > I think there ist some potential thread that bundles can add documentation > to the contentgraph as addition as Henry mentioned.Therefore we should > create an issue. > > But as Tommaso mentioned if you don't trust GraphNodeProvider or > ContentGraphProvider don't used it. I have developed a lot of applications > (e.g. Quiz, Poll, Feed Manager) where I don't use the ContentGraphProvider > because I don't want to share the information or I don't trust it. > > I think we could rename the package of the GraphNodeProvider to make clear > that it depends on the contentgraph and its additions. So I suggest to > rename the package of the GraphNodeProvider to > > platform.content.graphnodeprovider > > Would be cool if we could find a solution. > Indeed, I'm happy with the renaming if Henry can withdraw his -1 and accept the proposed resolutions to the issues being discussed. Reto > > Cheers > Tsuy > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Henry Story <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > 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/ > > > > >
