Harmeet,
> > Yes, it was. It was a modification to the existing code base.
Ergo, it
> > was a patch. That's why we use the [PATCH] flag.
>
> There is no need to be nuts over code that is for testing and
proposals.
>
> PATCH is reference to production code not test code.
>
> If you care about bundling ~10k or so test files in production jar
file,
> the
> right fix is to remove testing package from build file. Please note
that
> would be a change from what has been around for a long time. I don't
think
> it is worth doing, but again if you feel so strongly about it.
You are once again missing the point. There is a reason to be nuts
about testing and proposals. Because it's shared code.
Test code needs to be well documented so it can be understood by others.
When it's checked into the core code base it's considered ready for
prime time and thus needs to meet all the requirements of core code. By
point 4, that means javadoc.
Proposal code does need to be well documented, eventually. That's why
it's proposal, and that's why I said you could shove whatever you wanted
into proposals/test-suite. It just won't be moved to the core code base
until it meets standards. That's how it's supposed to work so we have a
maintainable code base while allowing for flexible development.
> I was trying to make sense of your action and attempting to be nice.
> testing
> package is where test code has been going from start.
> I haven't seen you suggest any other location and you seem to have
> arbitrarily decided what inappropriate is.
> Your actions are very inappropriate.
No, I haven't. I've followed the rules of the system. You placed .sh,
.bat, and .xml files in a directory entitled src/java. That's a hint.
Source files. Source files related to java. That means those files are
inappropriate.
I voted a '-1', after you checked the files in without posting them for
review. As a committer, I retain that right. You, for some bizarre
reason, couldn't understand my objections but told me to delete them if
I felt that strongly. I did and I did.
That's exactly appropriate.
> You want javadocs on test methods ? The point #4 was ment to push
> develepors
> in a direction not act as justification for removing files. You are
> picking
> things out of context and using it to justify abuse.
>
> That too on code that is only for testing.
Who said? I am reading a sentence that's in English. Are you? Unless
I'm missing some sort of secret subtext, it's pretty clear. Javadocs on
all methods. Not Javadocs on all methods but the ones Harmeet doesn't
want to javadoc. Your interpretation is simply incorrect. All methods.
Clear as day to me.
--Peter
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
