On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Author: rdonkin >>>> Date: Sun Nov 2 04:33:56 2008 >>>> New Revision: 709875 >>>> >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=709875&view=rev >>>> Log: >>>> Improved poms but don't seem to be able to make the build work correctly >>>> :-/ >>> i'm having problems making the maven build work correctly with the >>> protocol tester build. this code is independent of IMAP and i'm not >>> sure it really belongs in there. i plan to use it for smoke testing. >>> so maybe it would be better as a separate independent micro-library. >>> >>> opinions? >> >> any objections to me adding a top level product just in subversion for now? >> >> (to develop an ant lib and other improvements which will allow me to >> add protocol specific smoke tests) >> >> i'm happy to discuss the right long term position once everyone else >> has more time >> >> - robert > > Robert, go ahead :-)
cool > Just to make it clear, as I know I could appear annoying (sometimes ;-) > ), i don't find you annoying just sometimes difficult (not an uncommon quality for committers). i've come to learn that often it's linguistic misunderstandings (your english appears to be so good on list, it's sometimes hard to remember that it isn't a language you're totally at home in). i think i'm a little better at seeking qualifications before jumping. > as long as you really work and improve the code everything else is > not so important. Just I don't want to split the codebase in hundreds of > unmantained projects because at that point we'll loose more time > mantaining the infrastructure (build scripts, licenses, website stuff) > than the code itself. You have been really good in the past year working > on the code you "splitted", so I'm happy with this, and with any > infrastructural change is needed for this. thanks for stating that clearly i understand your position and aren't annoyed by it: discussion is good. the radical deconstruction i'm in favour of can be taken too far so it's important that people keep jumping in when it's being taken too far. the point about infrastructure is a good one. on balance, i think that means using more <ducks>maven</ducks> in the libraries. > *Thank you* and I hope to find the time soon to catch up with the latest > commit and contribute some code again (ATM I can only find some > minutes/day to do some james-user support). contributing to james-user is very important so i'm happy that you're prioritising that in general - though - i like posting stuff like this on list because i appreciate the feedback, feel it helps to build community and provides better a public record of the project - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
