harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Deakin <oliver.dea...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [tools] Ok to commit HARMONY-5944? (Was: [tools] Ok to commit HARMONY-5927?)
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:54:00 GMT
Hi Sian,

I support applying this patch. It should not alter the stability of the 
current code base as it is an incomplete tool and a timely commit is 
important to close out this GSoC project.

Regards,
Oliver

Sian January wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to commit another patch for policytool.  As Oliver mentioned
> previously, the tool is incomplete and has no impact on the rest of the
> Harmony code base.  Also it's the last week of GSoC this week so it would be
> helpful to AndrĂ¡s if we can check it in so he can complete his project.  Is
> there another commiter who will support this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sian
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Oliver Deakin <oliver.deakin@googlemail.com>
> Date: 4 Aug 2008 15:58
> Subject: Re: [tools] Ok to commit HARMONY-5927?
> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>
> Thanks Mark - I have applied the patch at repo revision r682413.
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
>
> Mark Hindess wrote:
>
>   
>> In message <4896E237.7030806@googlemail.com>, Oliver Deakin writes:
>>
>>
>>     
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Since we're in stability phase, I'm writing to request committer support
>>> for committing the patch supplied in HARMONY-5927. It is a patch for
>>> policytool - since this tool is incomplete, I do not think this patch will
>>> cause us any instability for our milestone build. I do not feel that this
>>> patch needs to be included in the milestone build - i.e. we can keep the
>>> milestone at r681495 unless other important patches are applied - as it is
>>> part of an incomplete tool. I do feel, however, that it would be useful for
>>> AndrĂ¡s' progress if we could apply this patch to the repository now.
>>>
>>> Any committers support/object to this patch being applied?
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> +1
>>
>> As you say, there is no need to include this in M7.  However, if we end
>> up committing other changes for the M7 then there is no real harm in
>> including this change.  So, I see no reason to hold it back.
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Mark.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   

-- 
Oliver Deakin
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU


Mime
View raw message