----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter M. Goldstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'James Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 11:56 AM Subject: RE: cvs commit: jakarta-james/src/java/org/apache/james/testing runtest.bat runtest.sh testconf.xml
> > > > 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. All right Peter, will add javadocs. I would use -1 on these kind of tests and removing files more prudently but as you said you have the right. Hope this resolves this matter. Harmeet -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
