<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    On 11/16/2011 10:33 AM, Adam Young wrote:
    <blockquote cite="mid:4EC3D7C3.9060407@redhat.com" type="cite">On
      11/15/2011 01:11 AM, Ade Lee wrote:
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">This is a review of this patch and the
        subsequent one removing
        <br>
        unnecessary blocks.
        <br>
        <br>
        CMCAuth.java: Can you explain why this code removal is correct?
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      At this point in the code,  cert can only be null.  The only code
      path that assigns a value to cert has a return after it,  and
      cannot reach this point.  Thus,  the code executed when cert !=
      null is unreachable
      <br>
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <br>
        CAAdminServlet.java : code should be commented out, rather than
        removed.
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      Disagree.  If this code has never been run,  it is unnecessary. 
      Lets not put dead code into the source tree.
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <br>
        HashEnrollServlet.java : remove the outer conditional as well.
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      Done
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">DBSubsystem.java: some important comments
        are removed, they should not
        <br>
        be removed.
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      Done
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <br>
        FileAsString.java - does the proposed code removal introduce a
        resource
        <br>
        leak?
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      No.  FileReader  can throw a file not found exception.  But
      BufferedReader only throws an IllegalArgumentException,  which
      wouldn't be caught by that catch block anyway.
      <br>
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <br>
        KeyRecoveryAuthority.java: please explain why the proposed code
        removal
        <br>
        is correct.  It certainly looks wrong.
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      I agree that the change looks wrong.  I put it back in,  and
      Eclipse did not tag it as dead code.
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <br>
        Ade
        <br>
        <br>
        On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 19:50 -0500, Adam Young wrote:
        <br>
        <blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________
          <br>
          Pki-devel mailing list
          <br>
          <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Pki-devel@redhat.com">Pki-devel@redhat.com</a>
          <br>
          <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pki-devel">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pki-devel</a>
          <br>
        </blockquote>
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Pki-devel mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Pki-devel@redhat.com">Pki-devel@redhat.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pki-devel">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pki-devel</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    Is that an ACK?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>