Hi Simo,
2013/3/19 Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> > Hi Bene, > > >> > >> which is the side effect of having them enabled and not used? > >> we are no longer using Revision and Date for the known reason, so even > >> if they are enabled... what's the downside? > >> > > > > I'm playing the devil's advocate here: aren't you the guy you tries to > > avoid unnecessary code/config as much as possible? I'm thinking of our > > discussions regarding static imports... ;-) IMHO this also applies here. > > > > just for the sake of satisfying the lawyer inside you: > I don't see why this statement was necessary. > > I asked, accidentally without using the `please` word - and please > take note that it is not my usual habit -, to explain where the > _issue_ that needs to be fixed is, on having properties enabled that > are _not used_ - again, this is "unfortunately" my default SVN config > that has to be compliant not just with Commons, which is not the only > project I am involved in. > The problem with this is, that it is _unnecessary_, just like unused imports, unused local variables or unnecessary casts etc. are. This is only partly related to our discussion regarding the $Date$ keyword. Setting a keyword that we have decided not to use, just adds another argument for removing it. [fileupload] is probably in the same state like [beanutils] (and a lot of other components) so I guess, that all files have svn:keywords= Date Revision Id HeadURL. Making bulk changes like this is a bit tedious (I've learned that when changing from $Date$ to $Id$ in [beanutils]) but should be done. If I can help with the development of [fileupload] by going through all files and removing unnecessary keywords, I'll do that asap (probably this weekend). Agreed? > > In this case, my friend, you are overkilling the discussion and rather > than having a tech argumentation here, you are trying to put ME on the > debate - I don't understand what did you want to demonstrate with this > message, or maybe I want to refuse to understand. > > Ah, and BTW, at the time of static imports, there was not a problem > that needed a fix: we had two different opinions and you put efforts > on proving that mine was wrong, where at the end of the day what > emerged is that both are valid. > If this is what you took from our discussion I'm a bit surprised. As I indicated on the other thread [1], the discussion with you guys is one of the things that make the most fun (apart from the actual coding ;-). I have the feeling that discussions are a bit harsh lately, and I don't know where this is coming from... If you feel disturbed by my comments I'm sorry. That wasn't my intention. Getting back to our discussion (which I found very refreshing): I tried to make my point clear and of course _discussing_ always involves trying to convince others, that ones opinion is right (or getting convinced from the opposite). I didn't start the discussion (or any other discussion) just for the sake of discussing. This would be stealing your free time and that is certainly not what I want to do. I'm not the kind of guy that always wants to have the last word (I think you know that). Tanti saluti, Benedikt [1] http://markmail.org/message/o7ef6o4ahe23k5iu > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > http://www.99soft.org/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- http://people.apache.org/~britter/ http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter http://github.com/britter
