Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> I still don't get how all of this changes can be less dungerous than
> removing an unused jar (JAMES-515).
OK, let's compare. I made the following kinds of changes:
- added a few lines of clear code to generate an optional log entry,
which was helpful in diagnosing a problem
- changed an incorrect log level from .info() to .debug()
- corrected the contents of a static text string
Now, while these are changes that should be reviewed, they are also things that
the compiler can do at least some sanity checking on, and are rather different
from removing JAR files where even you had some questions to make sure that
something wasn't being missed, and which someone else might be using. The
level of visibility to the impact of the change is not the same.
Although JAMES-515 does not really meet the LOW-RISK, HIGH-VALUE criteria, I
would be OK to make that change for v2.4.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
