On 7/18/08, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >>>> I don't think you did anything particularly wrong (except leaving >>>> trunk with a broken test which I suspect was not done intentionally). >>> Well, it was intentional. We never agreed if a failing test proving a bug >>> should be something to be committed ASAP or only committed once it pass. >>> I >>> had the test, so I committed it and created a JIRA. >>> If you prefer to not have failing tests in svn the next time I'll attach >>> the >>> test to JIRA. >> >> IMO committing the failing test was a bad plan for a number of reasons: >> >> the test is particularly nasty since it thrashes the computer >> indefinitely on failure. this is bad for anyone doing continuous >> integration builds for Mime4J. >> >> a failing test effectively freezes trunk and so encourages developers >> to dive in with a fix > > Ok, this is simply a matter of convention and guideline. > > AFAIK there was no consensus on this in past in JAMES, so I'll take your > request for good. > > We have many failing test now in mime4j (expecially since I activated > CRLF checks for a test to pass): what should we do? > Do you want me to remove all failing tests and attach to the JIRA I opened?
No - once everything's in trunk we can start fixing them together > >>> Of course this is my opinion and if the community have different opinions >>> it >>> is good we discuss and find consensus so the next time we know what is >>> accepted. >>> >>> What I don't like is criticism when people try to help: just think that >>> I'm >>> not here to break your code or create community issues, first, and then >>> propose improvement to the way we collaborate. >>> >>> Furthermore I find it weird that you worked on a branch for IMAP and at >>> that >>> time I was repeating "please work in trunk as you are the only developer >>> working there" and now we have opposite roles ;-) >> >> working on a branch was the only choice i was offered > > I'm sure I proposed multiple times that you worked in trunk ;-) > http://markmail.org/message/ohebvfub4xoixxb5 > http://markmail.org/message/nyvbgtxm6e7n2rmk > > BTW, next time I think I need a branch I will make sure everyone think > it is useful. I don't want to scare people because of a branch. At most > I'll publish the merged code on another server for reference. The use of the branch to illustrate the repackaging was absolutely fine. It's just development branches that concern me. Robert > > Stefano > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]