james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [cycleclean] branch review and questions
Date Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:58:19 GMT
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
> 2010/1/7 Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:

<snip>

>>> If you need explanations about some of that code just ask.
>>
>> Every time I raise a concern you basically say you know better, like
>> when I complained about really bizarre contract of
>> LineReaderInputStream#unread() method.
>
> ?? I said I can explain WHY I did something. I know better what I did,
> I don't pretend to know better what you wrote ;-)
> When you complained for the bizarre contract I reacted by improving
> it. Your concerns have been very helpful.
> You didn't convince me that copying the unreaded buffer was a better
> option. You can veto it or you can collect more opinions against my
> solution if you really think it is not ok. You know, if I write code I
> write the code the way I think it must be written.

this seems like a revolution not an evolution

unless consensus emerges very quickly, i'm will invoke "Rules For
Revolutionaries" and veto any merger. this means though it's cool to
fork and the fork can be a peer, it's not cool to split the community
by forking and then forcing replacement.

stefano clearly has a vision, and this vision may not be obvious to
others. he should pursue it in a releasable peer fork which may (one
day) become mime4j n.0.

- robert

Mime
View raw message