Re: [Junitdoclet-users] exception handling patch (bugfix)

[<ste...@ob...>]

Nicola,

> And yes, I am fully capable of reading English books. thank you. :) 
This was not what I ment. ;-) Maybe you want to read the 
book anyway.

> And
> besides, I also fully agree that wizards are evil (at least most of
> them). Isn't JUnitDoclet a wizard? Hm.
See FAQ.
 
> > > That maybe have been the way it worked until now. 
> > 
> > Your statement does not sound like freedom to me.
> 
> Might be new for you: Freedom != Holidays

Freedom is the right to do whatever one likes as long as 
it does not interfere with the freedom of other people.

I like the sound of that.

> > Begging? Ever heard of feature requests?
> 
> Surely, but I have the feeling that even tough you honor a request, it's
> still the team leader that decides which suggestions are finally
> implemented (which is ok, besides). 

So why din't you even try to communicate with the team leader? 
Well, forget it.

> But for me writing what I need _is_ an option, so I use it when I have
> the freedom (and time :). Otherwise, I gladfully write some feature
> requests... :)

That's what the source code is for. Modify and use it.
If you like it, make it a feature request. So it may be in 
the next release and you don't have to worry about 
maintaining it.

> > It's not my ego, that was hurt. If only one other user applied 
> > your patch, he/she meight think different about our tool now. 
> > That is, what I don't like.
> 
> Do you know the Compaq FAQ entry explaining "where the Any-key" is? Some
> people never get it. Some people just shouldn't program (maybe me
> included - but who else would then get the work done? :).

Well, who shows attitude now? 

> > Well, you meight try to communicate before you release 
> > a patch. At least try. That does not limit your freedom, right? 
> 
> I will send my (stable) patches meant as a suggestion for a next release
> first to you, promised. :)

Ok. 
 
> > <quote source="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">
> > The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One
> > is the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The 
> > choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL
> > permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the
> > ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs. </quote>
> 
> Thank you for this hard-to-find link! Was the reason to stick to this
> license driven by the thought that someone would want to _include_
> JUnitDoclet into some proprietary products? Or was it merely to allow
> people to use (the free) JUnitDoclet to generate tests for their
> (unfree) proprietary program?

Maybe a bit of both and some other reasons?

> btw, you're welcome for the hint with the sf.net patches. I only find it
> sad that the whole menu entry has disappeared since you removed my patch
> from public! :) 

You helped me to decide, we would rather make a minor release
then provide a patch. Whether or not the patches are public is
just an option in the admin pages. Since we won't use it, I turned 
it off. Your patch is not gone, but provided to the team only. 

So there won't be a buggy patch on our project again.
As you've sad: There are better things to do, than writing novels.

> ps: your nice xml style for the quote brings my to another suggestion:

Yes, I have seen what projects you are involved with. 

Properties may not be the coolest thing, but they 
are installed where Java is installed. When they 
go XML, JUnitDoclet will. 

Regards,

Steffen Gemkow
--
ObjectFab GmbH
ste...@ob...