harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] icu or apr-iconv, which coding library is better?
Date Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:34:19 GMT
Hello Alexey, folks,

As for big patches without discussion I have something to add. I'm
sorry about another patch [1] for TPTP folks which is even bigger than
the logger patch. The big size was caused by namespace deletion which
was required to pass compilation on VC6 without a warning.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5750



On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Alexey Varlamov
<alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/4/17, Mark Hindess <mark.hindess@googlemail.com>:
>
>
> >
>  > On 16 April 2008 at 21:59, "Nathan Beyer" <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Alexey Varlamov <
>  > > alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > > 2008/4/16, Nathan Beyer <nbeyer@gmail.com<https://mail.google.com/mail?view
>  > > =cm&tf=0&to=nbeyer@gmail.com>
>  > > > >:
>  > > > > I think we need more consensus on this. Is everyone in agreement
about
>  > > > > dumping log4cxx? Is this patch the appropriate replacement?
>  > > >
>  > > > Well, the suggestion has positive responses from me, Xiao-Feng and
>  > > > Ilya Berezhniuk, and no specifc opposing arguments. Let's wait last
>  > > > 24h, tomorrow I'll commit if no objections.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Someone has to be the bad guy.
>  >
>  > I don't think anyone saw it like that.  The issues you raised -
>  > particularly about the confusion [see the current subject line for
>  > example] about what was trying to be achieved were entirely reasonable.
>  >
>  > > I don't really care to honest, but I do know that big changes
>  > > generally have big side-effects, so I think it's better to have
>  > > more consensus and discussion up front. As the size and effect of
>  > > the change increases, so should the discussion and number of people
>  > > involved increase.
>  >
>  > Indeed.  In this case, too much discussion happened on the JIRA before
>  > Tim's comment.  So discussion should probably have happened here before
>  > the JIRA was even opened.
>
>  Agree, approach was far from ideal - it was a surprise to catch a huge
>  patch w/o preliminary discussion or even indicating intentions in
>  JIRA's comment.
>
>  OK, does anyone still have a confusion about the issue?
>
>  --
>  Alexey
>
>  >
>  > Regards,
>  >  Mark
>  >
>  >
>  >
>



-- 
With best regards,
Alexei

Mime
View raw message