incubator-clerezza-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tsuyoshi Ito <>
Subject Re: sketch of a compromise solution -- Re: [VOTE] Accept the proposed patch of CLEREZZA-540
Date Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:58:51 GMT
Hi Henry, hi Reto

Can I remind you that we are working towards a release and IMO we should not
change APIs anymore. Your are now discussing over 2 weeks about the
GraphNodeProvider and IMO your discussion isn't very constructive.

I think there ist some potential thread that bundles can add documentation
to the contentgraph as addition as Henry mentioned.Therefore we should
create an issue.

But as Tommaso mentioned if you don't trust GraphNodeProvider or
ContentGraphProvider don't used it. I have developed a lot of applications
(e.g. Quiz, Poll, Feed Manager) where I don't use the ContentGraphProvider
because I don't want to share the information or I don't trust it.

I think we could rename the package of the GraphNodeProvider to make clear
that it depends on the contentgraph and its additions. So I suggest to
rename the package of the GraphNodeProvider to


Would be cool if we could find a solution.


On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Henry Story <> wrote:

> On 6 Jun 2011, at 18:07, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
> > -1 for the moment on closing the issue. (not on removing the code)
> >>  Please answer the above points carefully.
> >
> > I can of course remove the code, In understood the staement above as you
> not
> > explicitely not asking me to do so. The point is that it makes little
> > difference (apart from the couple of minutes needed for the revert): your
> -1
> > is blocking further development.
> >
> > To your claim that I did not provide an explanation for my recent -1 to
> your
> > resolution of CLEREZZA-515: A -1 without technical reasons is not valid,
> I
> > provided 5 technical reasons with my -1. I refused to give further
> > explanations and enter discussion before you removed the compatibility
> and
> > api-description breaking patch. It took you more than a week to revert
> this
> > change, this was a serious impediment on using the code in trunk.
> >
> > May I ask you to be explicit:
> >
> > [ ] I stick to my -1, but I don't mind the code staying there as long as
> no
> > new code is added depending on it
> > [ ] I want the patch for CLEREZZA-540 reverted
> > [ ] I withdraw my -1
> I have also provided ample technical reasons. But I am willing to look at
> your arguments (unlike your -1 on my code). The discussion seems to be
> evolving quite a lot. I want to look at this relation between JSR311 code
> and the
> If I may say: adding code quickly to ZZ and then closing  issues quickly
> seems like a way to bypass scrutiny.
> Reviewing code as you mentioned recently in CLEREZZA-516 is a lot of work
> (indeed you asked me there to do more work refactoring things, to avoid you
> having to do such reviewing). I am sure you can make a branch, like my
> bblfish branch, and work on that in the mean time.
> I'll be looking at your criticism of my JSR311 points and your explanation
> for why you need this next. You should be happy that you get this free
> reviewing. Criticism is expensive to purchase.
> Henry
> Social Web Architect

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message