Chris - I understand what you're saying, and I realize it appeared odd, to say the least, that I didn't wait, given that my message implied that I would. After I sent the message I thought about how it had been said on this list that we often operate by commit first, review later, and I figured that since this was a minimal change and not controversial, I would commit it, and reverse it later if anyone objected.
On another note, would it be all right with you if I disable or delete the logging call in MimeTypes.load(), or can you tell me how a Tika user could do so? Thanks, Keith Chris Mattmann wrote: > > Hi Keith: > >> >> This is pretty urgent for me -- I have a software deadline tonight and >> I'd >> like to use a version of Tika that is checked into subversion. If it's >> ok >> with you I'd like to commit the TIKA-81 patch this afternoon, and we can >> devise a longer term solution later. >> > > For a small piece of agreed upon functionality this is fine, but I just > want > to clarify that commits/patches/etc. should not necessarily be driven by > the > deadlines of a single developer. Again, in this case it's fine: this was a > small piece of code that was universally agreed upon and added > functionality: rather than reorganized, or removed it. > > In the future though, I think it should be discouraged to allow such > timelines to be a driver for committing patches. In this case, you waited > 7 > minutes (as far as I can tell) between sending your last email and > committing the patch. Seeing as though we all live in different > locations/timezones, etc., this wasn't even enough time for (m)any folks > to > reply. > > I just wanted to send this as a heads up to you as far as my preference. > The > other developers may have their own, which they are entitled to. > > Cheers, > Chris > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/MimeTypes-MimeUtils-Refactoring-tf4649072.html#a13284661 Sent from the Apache Tika - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
