james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: [cycleclean] minor naming tweaks; was Re: [cycleclean] branch review and questions
Date Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:10:21 GMT
2010/1/14 Norman Maurer <norman.maurer@googlemail.com>:
> Hi Markus,
> svn rm and svn mv are not a good way for doing this.. This will affect
> history ...

if we do a merge then we'll keep trunk history (during the branch) but
every revision done in the branch will be lost. If we do the rm+mv
then we'll keep branch revisions but loose any change done in trunk
during the branch. Given that we had no changes in trunk during the
branch it seems that rm+mv is the best choice.


> Bye,
> Norman
> 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