From the sideline: I am also concerned about adding dependendcies in low level libraries for replacing only a few lines of code.
From ASF policy perspective, the veto (-1) requires a technical explanation, cf. https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide with the veto a technical justification showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight." So IMHO asking for an explanation about the actual CnP is totally fine. Gruß Richard Am 1. November 2024 15:22:07 MEZ schrieb Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org>: >Hi Gary, > >Le 01/11/2024 à 14:22, Gary D. Gregory a écrit : >> There has been no revert from the committer since the -1 on October 24, so I >> will revert. This affects 11 Java files. This will revert the copy and >> pasting of code patterns over and over. > >I don't understand your "copy pasting" argument, the commit replaced exactly 8 >occurrences of: > > int[] array = ArrayFill.fill(new int[length], value); > >with: > > int[] array = new int[length]; > Arrays.fill(array, value); > > >It also replaced: > > SystemProperties.getOsName(); > >with: > > System.getProperty("os.name"); > > >And two reflexive calls such as: > > FieldUtils.readField(object, fieldName, true); > >with: > > Field field = InputStream.class.getDeclaredField(fieldName); > field.setAccessible(true); > return field.get(object); > > >These are not unreasonable substitutions to avoid a 660KB dependency. You make >it sound like I copy-pasted tons of lines, but that's only 6 more lines of >code overall. > > >Let me put this differently, I'm -1 to your commits bf50b7d9 [1], 87e898fa [2] >and 09031c91 [3] from earlier this year that introduced the dependency on >Commons Lang in the first place. I'm especially unhappy with the first one, a >mix of unrelated changes confusingly labeled as "Internal refactoring", where >the dependency sneaked into without notice, neither mentioned in the commit >message nor in the changelog. This dependency is an unnecessary bloat. > >I'm also concerned about the extra dependency on Commons Codec and Commons IO, >also added this year. I'd like to return to the state of Commons Compress 1.25 >with *zero* runtime dependency (besides the optional ones required for the >various compression algorithms supported). For Codec and IO I suggest shading >the classes as a compromise. > >Emmanuel Bourg > >[1] https://github.com/apache/commons-compress/commit/bf50b7d9 >[2] https://github.com/apache/commons-compress/commit/87e898fa >[3] https://github.com/apache/commons-compress/commit/09031c91 > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >
