"Diethelm Guallar, Gonzalo" wrote:
> > Even if the JServ stuff is being handled as a vendor fork, -1
> > on making
> > cosmetic modifications to it. +1 on making them to the
> > Turbine source,
> > however. I am not sure about the java directory...
> I tend to agree with you. However, besides cosmetic changes
> (in order to bring the files to the proposed Turbine guidelines),
> I also added many missing Javadoc entries. How about these?
The problem with cosmetic changes to files that come from the
outside of Turbine is that when their authors would make
changes to them, merging them with our copies would be
tedious. We would get lots of conflicts and efectively
the patch would have to be applied by hand.
The question is wheter we are going to be merging upstream
changes to these files, or they are as good as it gets
already.
I think that the sources in question are stable, so your
changes could stay. And if some bug is found in them
upstream, you'll have the honour of applying fixes :-).
Rafal
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
