james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norman Maurer <norman.mau...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [cycleclean] minor naming tweaks; was Re: [cycleclean] branch review and questions
Date Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:48:14 GMT
Hi Markus,

svn rm and svn mv are not a good way for doing this.. This will affect
history ...


2010/1/13 Markus Wiederkehr <markus.wiederkehr@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
>> 2010/1/8 Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:
>>> With so many classes moved to different packages an iterative merge
>>> would just be too hard. I am +1 to merging the entire branch down to
>>> trunk. Remaining issues can be dealt with once the branch has been
>>> merged.
>>> Minor stuff:
>>> (1) I also would like to propose a few minor changes / renames. Ideally,
>>> I would like the 'steam' package to be fully usable out of the box. So,
>>> it would be good if DefaultBodyDescriptor was moved to 'steam' and
>>> renamed to BasicBodyDescriptor for consistency. I also think
>>> FullBodyDescriptor is a better name for MaximalBodyDescriptor
>> I moved the DefaultBodyDescriptor, and also some method from
>> MimeTokenStream to BasicTokenStream. I'd like to leave the Maximal to
>> Full change for a later step (after merge), but I agree that "Maximal"
>> is not a good name.
>>> (2) I have a number of test cases failing on me when run on Windows. I
>>> think mismatch in line delimiters is the cause. I would be great to have
>>> this fixed before the merge. All test cases used to work on Windows.
>> I double checked this with a new checkout (windows and freebsd) and it
>> worked. I guess this is because you have old resources already checked
>> out and they differs from real resources only for newlines so svn is
>> not correclty updating them.
>> Can you check this on a clean checkout? Can you tell me a specific
>> test that doesn't work (and maybe send me a zip with the original and
>> expected test files so I can bit-compare them with mine?) ?
>>> (3) Tons of javadocs need to be reviewed / updated. I am willing to
>>> help.
>> Maybe we can fix them once we agree that the branch is to be merged.
>> We had no comments from Markus and last comment from Robert was "I
>> will veto any merge attempt".. so I'd like to wait some day to see if
>> they will take into consideration reviewing the code.
> Hi Stefano,
> Mime4j is not very much on top of my personal priorities right now
> (sorry) but I will try to look into your proposed code changes in the
> next couple of days.
> Without having looked into the code I would tend to trust you and Oleg
> to come up with a good solution and a better Mime4j than what we have
> now.
> By the way, I think there were no commits to trunk after you started
> your branch. So once consensus is reached it would be possible to "svn
> rm trunk" and "svn mv cycleclean trunk".
> The result would be the same as if all development happened in trunk
> so I think in this case there is no reason to veto a merge only
> because it's a merge.
> Cheers,
> Markus

View raw message