[jboss-cvs] jboss-cvs-commits Digest, Vol 44, Issue 151

[Ales Justin]

> If you have some javadoc that's good. You can commit that on a branch you take from -r100671. I'll be happy to pick it up and feed it into trunk as I understand that this might conflict with my latest JBOSGI-287 commit. There should be no additional cost for you - and yes, comprehensive docs is very important to me.

You're missing the/my point.

In this case it can be dealt this way, so you take all the workload.
But what about other potential (previous and) future refactoring/revert cases?

We cannot work this way -- since nobody else but you will be able to commit at one point.
Or, it will be able, but it would take him valuable time to do it, which (s)he could have spent a lot more efficient.

So what if a few Hudson runs fail?

See my post on the forum:
We need to decide what we wanna do.

(1) persuing the full OSGi_Facade based on generalized MC, passing as much of TCK as possible, while still having decent integration tests, and eventually push this features to AS as well

(2) or, jumping from story to story, doing a bit of AS integration, hence complaining how we're breaking this while  we persue (1), and a bit of OSGi core framework, hence saying we don't care about (2) atm


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-cvs-commits/attachments/20100210/3a3cc28c/attachment.html