Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On 7/18/08, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
I don't think you did anything particularly wrong (except leaving
trunk with a broken test which I suspect was not done intentionally).
Well, it was intentional. We never agreed if a failing test proving a bug
should be something to be committed ASAP or only committed once it pass.
I
had the test, so I committed it and created a JIRA.
If you prefer to not have failing tests in svn the next time I'll attach
the
test to JIRA.
IMO committing the failing test was a bad plan for a number of reasons:
the test is particularly nasty since it thrashes the computer
indefinitely on failure. this is bad for anyone doing continuous
integration builds for Mime4J.
a failing test effectively freezes trunk and so encourages developers
to dive in with a fix
Ok, this is simply a matter of convention and guideline.
AFAIK there was no consensus on this in past in JAMES, so I'll take your
request for good.
We have many failing test now in mime4j (expecially since I activated
CRLF checks for a test to pass): what should we do?
Do you want me to remove all failing tests and attach to the JIRA I opened?
No - once everything's in trunk we can start fixing them together
I already merged the streams-refactoring. The "repackaging proposal" is
waiting for a comment from you. If you like the proposed package please
reply to that thread (or the JIRA issue) so we can "close" that issue
too and eventually reproduce the refactoring in trunk.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
