Hi Markus, svn rm and svn mv are not a good way for doing this.. This will affect history ...
Bye, Norman 2010/1/13 Markus Wiederkehr <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2010/1/8 Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]>: >>> 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 >
