royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Container change
Date Thu, 10 May 2018 11:21:02 GMT
Harbs,

my position is that I don't one to depend of a particular code (Basic)
since is not needed (right now in Jewel).
your position is that you want the build fixed so you can continue working
on your app.

Let me know why both can get what we want?

If you get the build fix and can continue working although Jewel doesn't
need Basic anymore...why want to consider a revert?

That will only make me from left this project, since will prove that we
can't work as a team (some decision are better that the others, although it
could live together).

If my refactor wasn't good for the project, I'll be ok. But is good since
it stands for a better organization and structure. So the problem for me is
fix builds...


2018-05-10 12:53 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com>:

> Carlos,
>
> The branch is just a branch. I will gladly throw the branch away once this
> is resolved. What I named the branch is not important.
>
> Whether we revert develop or fix it depends on the outcome of our
> discussion here. You clearly feel that the refactor is the right thing to
> do and I’m perfectly willing to be convinced. But to be convinced you need
> to do the convincing…
>
> We’re not going to come to an agreement on how to move forward until
> there’s consensus on whether to fix the refactor or revert it.
>
> Thanks,
> Harbs
>
> > On May 10, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ok Harbs,
> >
> > for me that branch should not be a "reverting" branch, but a way to fix
> the
> > things the refactor causes :
> >
> > 1.- JSONLY: I don't know why that build breaks, and how can I test it
> > localy. If I know I can help fixing that for sure.
> >
> > 2.- ANT: is working or not? doesn't make clear to me. If not works, here
> I
> > prefer the help of the people that controls ANT, since I'm not
> >
> > 3.- After all that is working 1 (or 1 & 2, is 2 is break), then your
> > application should work without problem in the same way it did.
> >
> > So for me this is not a problem of a refactor, this is only showing some
> > deficiencies in our build system.
> >
> > At the end we should get what you want and what I need to continue Jewel
> > working.
> >
> > Sorry that this is making so much noise and build breaks, but although I
> > admit my mistake in the way I do this, this is arising a problem that was
> > sleeping inside our builds.
> >
> > If someone let me know how I can try to build JSONLY localy I can see
> > what's going on in this maven build, and help (as a team) to fix the
> actual
> > problems.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > 2018-05-10 12:40 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> The only reverting I did was in a feature branch so I can continue
> >> working. I don’t think that’s aggressive at all…
> >>
> >> Harbs
> >>
> >>> On May 10, 2018, at 1:32 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We’re pushing back on these changes and simply standing your ground
> and
> >>>> claiming others are not being good team members is not fair.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Harbs, you are doing a very aggressive thing reverting my work. A work
> >> that
> >>> was done with several hours.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

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