As an example you added an addr.toString(): This could raise a
NullPointerException.
I reviewed the code that return the addr variable and I now know that it
never return null but this is *manual* review, *error* *prone*.
Instead the jar have been removed in trunk since weeks and we run that
code without any problem. I'm still really convinced that removing an
unused jar is MUCH LESS dungerous that changing a single line of code
(even a comment).
Btw this is personal opinion. I just wanted to put emphasys on the fact
that I don't like this and if I have to accept vetoes to removal of jars
I should be free to cast at least a -0 about this changes without too
much discussions.
Again, and for the last time: I think that all of this stuff belong to
the RC process, but I simply aligned myself to the fact that other
committers seems to require a more strict approach to changes while in
rc. So this deserve my -0 and my dissappoint. About 2.4 I'll talk after
2.3.0 final. Stop.
Stefano
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
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]
