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]

Reply via email to