On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> <snip> >> >>> PS: "dispirited" and "disappointed" and "this is a complete mess" seems a >>> bit out of contest in a collaborative environment. >> >> i am disappointed that mime4j cannot be build and that the last good >> build is over 10 days ago > > I'm disappointed too for this. Who should we blame?
let's not talk about blame but about how we can go forward from here. given the number of changes which have been made we need to test Mime4J against JAMES trunk ASAP. this means that the test suite needs to pass. >> i'm dispirited because i finally have a day off to catch up on JAMES >> stuff and (yet again) i find that i can't work on IMAP because MIme4J >> can't be built > > Just build it anyway. You can ignore failures because they should not be > *new* bugs, but older bugs that simply have a proving test now. ignoring failures is a bad idea: it's too easy to introduce regressions into the Mime4J codebase. >>> Everyone is working to fix bugs here, and you may notice most bugs have >>> not >>> been introduced by the one that reported them or are investigating on >>> fixing >>> them. If we like to use this words it is disappointing that we have so >>> many >>> regression since 0.3, but I never used this word because I'm used to work >>> in >>> similar projects and I know this simply happens. >> >> some undocumented and untested behaviour has regressed but this does >> not justify breaking the test suite > > breaking the test suite??? We added new tests to prove the existence of > bugs. adding tests without fixes breaks the test suite > Unfortunately we removed many messages from the test suite so we had a less > complete test suite in the current implementation. This led to regression, > and this simply happens (I'm not telling that it's your fault). i'm not bothered about fault finding: i'm just concerned that Mime4j is broken > An issue was about boundary handling and the regression was against what the > RFC document (so it was documented), but again, it is not important to > understand who is the author of the mistake: if someone do things is for > sure more probable that he also does mistakes. Who does nothing does not > mistake too. > > The 3 test failing in MessageWriteToTest are simply failing because their > expected result is probably bad from an RFC compliance point of view. if the expected result is wrong then it should be fixed. if the expected result is right then the code has regressed and should be fixed. > If you think it is bad to have this failure then a fix for this is really > easy: remove the 4 msg files about boundaries and remove the 3 > MessageWriteToTest failing tests. IMHO this would be bad because it simply > means hiding existing bugs, but I'm happy with any solution make you less > disappointed and more happy in the collaboration. these bugs reported effected only the DOM API. adding tests which are known to fail is bad for collaborators: this actions means stops progress being made in other parts of the library. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
