Return-Path: 
 <mime4j-dev-return-869-apmail-james-mime4j-dev-archive=james.apache.org@james.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-james-mime4j-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: (qmail 21573 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2010 14:58:49 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Jan 2010 14:58:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 11723 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jan 2010 14:58:49 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-james-mime4j-dev-archive@james.apache.org
Received: (qmail 11689 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jan 2010 14:58:49 -0000
Mailing-List: contact mime4j-dev-help@james.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:mime4j-dev-help@james.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mime4j-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mime4j-dev@james.apache.org>
List-Id: <mime4j-dev.james.apache.org>
Reply-To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Received: (qmail 11679 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jan 2010 14:58:49 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:58:49 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.218.217 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.218.217] (HELO mail-bw0-f217.google.com)
 (209.85.218.217)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:58:41 +0000
Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so10964329bwz.12
        for <mime4j-dev@james.apache.org>;
 Thu, 07 Jan 2010 06:58:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
         :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=Bw0bcdn+nahB09ys3k5i75Ab6kQCetbQmlRIaGcSMOw=;
        b=GizH7ZFQ8+8v8IDCdTU5tmjF9dOIm0RFs/nTrt+VgHZJ3uzG0c5Pu61Q5QbrrJzA1x
         aPZYkJMCZaM4ym13FoRfhOFj6fBJ4fHekvXbTWwwQU0zcObvL/HfYfVvt5SA5t1c/waN
         OYGmCcTzU3qFUOZ1DX/cR8XilyJovD204gtf8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=eybp+IzzsfJp0Rw5vAyF+N5Cd5Wtrb4UMAD3BA1PVNUzta5cWwVTM88XAkMn4KG/bT
         6z5jkRimJliLThp6gF7cEr9tkhgxmzzqSUBFVUq5WPt+5ci5LomhSrTrVFNmR3B+j6hD
         g5s/eeghud2eVSOtDruDv/NUhByEAIe1hSoM8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.25.67 with SMTP id y3mr1053009bkb.187.1262876299737; Thu,
	07 Jan 2010 06:58:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9426afb71001070554v2d19c0b0he0dc3971fb306c1a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9426afb71001051133g3f4a065bsb7058cc6e2ce09dd@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1262866630.5718.0.camel@ubuntu>
	 <9426afb71001070434p476482e8hc429b90a0ad40b9f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1262871132.5718.21.camel@ubuntu>
	 <9426afb71001070554v2d19c0b0he0dc3971fb306c1a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:58:19 +0000
Message-ID: <f470f68e1001070658l3bbbef1fo55ecc02c934a69d0@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cycleclean] branch review and questions
From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

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