Harmeet, > > It was resolved, as it always is, in a matter of hours > > of being reported. Not days. Or months. > > Agreed, but you broke it, I reported it and you fixed it. I could have
> fixed it too. Just like you could've fixed the broken AuthService anytime in the last nine months. But you didn't. And thus it doesn't count. You see, saying you're going to do something doesn't cut any mustard when you've got no follow through. This is in fact just like AuthService. You claimed to be able to write a service that would replace it. You never submitted it for consideration. It doesn't exist. You never bothered to make it exist. It's much easier to not do the work and play the victim. You simply ignored all the posed technical points and rather than trying to address them, you went off and sulked. And then you took out your passive-aggressive tendencies on Noel's committer vote. Lovely. > > > Perhaps this is the core of the issue. You seem to think that > > you're work contributed prior to this release allows you dictatorial > > control over the code. > > I have reported the issue and exact code where things were broken. If > I felt what you are saying, I woundn't have been sending code > problematic snippets > to the list. > > > > i) Test code with an unmarked protocol script in violation of the > > RFC > > Some test code is better than none. > If there is a test script that voilates RFC why don't you suggest a > patch or add tests. Test code for test code's sake is useless. It's only when it's part of a comprehensive notion of testing - and when those test cases are clearly labeled - that the testing is at all worthwhile. See any of Noel's emails regarding test code. > > ii) A superfluous class (CRLFWriter.java) that didn't even address a > > documented issue in the NNTP code. This issue means that the > > CRLFWriter code was wrong. > > This is no longer there. As soon as I saw something eqivalent I > removed it. This was yesterday or a couple of days back. Exactly. So it wasn't a useful contribution. Of course you didn't bother to actually read the code base to investigate this... > > > > iii) An incorrect scheduler that exhibited almost exactly the same > > behavior as the current Scheduler > > > > iv) Another Scheduler implementation that no one but you seems to > > think we need, and that you haven't put the time in to build and > > test with Noel. > > Sceduler implementation has already been verified. You made a number > of fixes too in watchdog. Noel seems to disagree with this statement. He states that there is at least one open bug in your scheduler implementation. Moreover, as far as I can tell from the posts, you've never sent him a .sar for testing. So we have no idea, save for your word (which you also gave for the Timer implementation of the scheduler, as I recall), that the thing works properly under load. It may. It may not. But you haven't put in the effort to test and possibly fix. As far as the Watchdog goes, I have. It works and has been demonstrated to work by other people. > > A regression indeed. And fixed. In an hour. Not nine months. > > After I posted the exact snippet that exhibitted the problem. Would > have been nicer if you would have once tested it yourself or > discovered the snippet rather than adding code and breaking the > server. And it would've been nice if you hadn't implemented an architecturally unsound AuthService. We all make mistakes. The difference is that I fix my own. You do not. So to sum up, in the entirety of 2002 you haven't contributed a single useful line of code or documentation. Yet you wish to block those who've been working diligently on the project for months. It all comes back to ethics... > > As the NNTP code stood today morning at least, it was much worse than > anytime in last 9 months. Auth was broken for 9 months but in the last > few days everything was broken. I am trying to test and fix. In a word, this is a lie. There are zero (that's none) outstanding bugs against the current code base. All the issues you reported have been addressed - quickly and efficiently. What's your issue? Name your issue and I'll look at it. But the server works - and was tested a great deal more than it ever was before. Just the sheer unmitigated gall of this response is amazing. We have here a committer who abandoned the product for nine months, with a slew of open critical bugs against his nominally owned component. For god's sake, one of them was a typo in a string. It took a grand total of 20 seconds for me to find it. And yet it's like every nugget of code he wrote came down from the mountain with Moses. The attitude just leaves me speechless. And we once again come back to the same point - if you don't like the changes in James Harmeet, use an older version. You haven't contributed one whit to this or to the last version (2.0a3), so I don't see what you're complaining about. --Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
