On 8/25/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From the comments on the issue, it looks like Craig has some > reservations about this idea. You might want to add a comment to the > issue linking to the relevant mailing list thread(s) from November > '05. Craig commented on the issue itself, but Martin must have > answered on the mailing list. Have their concerns been addressed? > I will add that to the bug report. Yes, those concerns have been addressed because the approach is different then the original idea. > (The patch itself has some noise, reordering import statements. > Consider committing that separately so it doesn't distract from the > actual changes.) > Sorry about the re-ordering. I didn't think that would matter because imports come and go as I tried different things. But I guess it does matter. Commits are on a whole file basis, right? So I would have to fix those ordering before committing?
FWIW, my concerns about this have become less important in the last ten months, due to the fact that I'm focused on Shale now much more than Struts. It's the active committers on Struts you really need to be concerned with. That being said, I agree with Wendy's advice that "cosmetic" changes (such as reordering imports) should be segregated into individual commits. Besides the fact that they will almost never engenender discussion (so "just do it" makes sense as a personal policy), it also makes the review of potentially controversial functional changes much easier, because you don't get distracted by all the cosmetic-change details. Paul Craig
