In my opinion, where the patch is going to applied anyway, you may as well commit it and fix any problems as you go along. I don't think you buy much by making a branch. I'd save those for experimental changes which may end up being rejected.
On Nov 16, 2007 4:14 PM, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hopefully the patch I just committed doesn't blow this up. Would this > warrent a branch so that other people can take a look and critique it? > > Scott > > > Scott O'Bryan wrote: > > Don't know. Anyway, I'll go ahead and take a look at it. It'll > > probably be Monday before I get back to you. > > > > Simon Lessard (JIRA) wrote: > >> [ > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PORTLETBRIDGE-6?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel > >> ] > >> > >> Simon Lessard updated PORTLETBRIDGE-6: > >> -------------------------------------- > >> > >> Attachment: PORTLETBRIDGE-6.patch > >> > >> New version of the patch with StringBuilder. Note: Why is there no > >> longer any "provide patch" option in JIRA? > >> > >> > >>> JDK 1.5 Functionality > >>> --------------------- > >>> > >>> Key: PORTLETBRIDGE-6 > >>> URL: > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PORTLETBRIDGE-6 > >>> Project: MyFaces Portlet Bridge > >>> Issue Type: Improvement > >>> Components: General > >>> Affects Versions: 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT > >>> Reporter: Scott O'Bryan > >>> Assignee: Simon Lessard > >>> Attachments: PORTLETBRIDGE-6.patch > >>> > >>> > >>> The bridge was originally coded to the JDK1.4 standard. Since > >>> JSF1.2 requires JDK5, we should follow the JDK5 standards for speed > >>> and reliability. Most notibly: > >>> * Specify generics wherever possible - especially in the > >>> ExternalContext implementations which use this by default > >>> * Remove the SimpleStringBuilder class in impl and replace it's > >>> usage with StringBuilder > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > >
