Why? I've heard initializing fields, even to their defaults, is a good
practice and makes code clearer.
Damjan
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:43 AM, wrote:
> Author: ebourg
> Date: Thu Nov 28 07:43:15 2013
> New Revision: 1546303
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1546303
> Log:
> Removed field initial
Sad!
Sorry I didn't have to check.
I hope it's not your final decision (yes final keyword is important here :-) )
On 28 November 2013 14:09, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Vote closed, results were:
>
> +1:
> Damjan Jovanovic
>
> No other votes were cast.
>
> Vote fails since majority approval needs a
Vote closed, results were:
+1:
Damjan Jovanovic
No other votes were cast.
Vote fails since majority approval needs at least 3 votes of +1 ->
aborting release.
Damjan
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Please vote on releasing commons-imaging 1.0 from RC7.
>
> Last fail
Le 27/11/2013 19:50, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> The next step IMO would be to break the ant-pattern for good and change
> types like ImagingConstants from interfaces to classes (or enums if
> appropriate).
Yes I plan to look into that. The Map to pass parameters
to the parsers isn't great and I'm lo
The next step IMO would be to break the ant-pattern for good and change
types like ImagingConstants from interfaces to classes (or enums if
appropriate).
If you are willing to add that to your already Herculean effort, Emannuel,
feel free ;)
Gary
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:38 PM, wrote:
> Auth
Le 27/11/2013 13:47, Gilles a écrit :
> What is "stash", what is "stash pop"?
This is equivalent to the shelving feature on the Subversion 1.10
roadmap. This allows you to put aside the local modifications and pull
them back later. This is done without committing anything.
> You see, from my ze
On 27 November 2013 13:37, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 27/11/2013 13:47, Gilles a écrit :
>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:44:27 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>> Le 27/11/2013 12:13, Gilles a écrit :
>>>
I'm only a bit worried about the timing, and whether knowledgeable
people will be willing to
Le 27/11/2013 13:47, Gilles a écrit :
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:44:27 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> Le 27/11/2013 12:13, Gilles a écrit :
>>
>>> I'm only a bit worried about the timing, and whether knowledgeable
>>> people will be willing to detail the move and explain what to do to
>>> so that th
git stash is the same as svn create patch and revert. So, you're
creating a local patch, reverting your local changes, updating your
local copy from the repo (git pull), then git stash pop will restore
your previous local changes - the same as svn apply patch.
The only way that using git inste
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:44:27 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 27/11/2013 12:13, Gilles a écrit :
I'm only a bit worried about the timing, and whether knowledgeable
people will be willing to detail the move and explain what to do to
so that the total ignorant can indeed continue contributing "à l
Le 27/11/2013 12:13, Gilles a écrit :
> I'm only a bit worried about the timing, and whether knowledgeable
> people will be willing to detail the move and explain what to do to
> so that the total ignorant can indeed continue contributing "à la svn"[1]
> until he finds the time to study the more a
Le 27/11/2013 11:46, Gilles a écrit :
> Do "we" really have to allow them? Or do they have the right to do as
> they please?
Well, I thought after the last vote/discussion about Git that we had a
consensus to experiment with Git at a component level.
Do we want to vote formally for cli?
Emmanu
Hi.
I accept on face value that switching to Git will bring nice features
to the development process.
I'm only a bit worried about the timing, and whether knowledgeable
people will be willing to detail the move and explain what to do to
so that the total ignorant can indeed continue contributing
On 2013-11-27, Gilles wrote:
>> So can we please allow the folks who actively work on [cli] today
>> make the decsision which vcs they want to use?
> Do "we" really have to allow them? Or do they have the right to do as
> they please?
"allow" was meant to be "let" rather than "permit" - my inte
Hello.
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:13:25 +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Hi
I don't intend to argue for git or svn at all, but rather for "let
the
people decide who do the work".
Exactly. Unless I'm mistaken those who do the work are not the
unidentified people out there who might some beautiful da
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:04:15 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 26/11/2013 14:56, Gilles a écrit :
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:47:09 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 26/11/2013 14:42, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
What's the point of using git then?
To provide a better collaboration tool for the external
Am 27.11.2013 11:13, schrieb Stefan Bodewig:
Hi
I don't intend to argue for git or svn at all, but rather for "let the
people decide who do the work".
+1
IIUC we can migrate CLI to git without forcing all other Commons
components to make the move as well. I for one do not intend to work on
[c
Hi
I don't intend to argue for git or svn at all, but rather for "let the
people decide who do the work".
IIUC we can migrate CLI to git without forcing all other Commons
components to make the move as well. I for one do not intend to work on
[cli] and if I had to patch a small thing (like I did
Le 26/11/2013 14:56, Gilles a écrit :
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:47:09 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> Le 26/11/2013 14:42, Benedikt Ritter a écrit :
>>
>>> What's the point of using git then?
>>
>> To provide a better collaboration tool for the external contributors,
>> and thus increasing the exter
19 matches
Mail list logo
