commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject Re: [beanutils] moving reflection classes out of beanutils
Date Fri, 06 Dec 2002 17:47:08 GMT
On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 04:27 PM, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 08:39 PM, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
>>> --- robert burrell donkin
>>> <robertburrelldonkin@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> rodney hasn't been a regular contributor to
>>>> beanutils either in terms of
>>>> code or on the mailing lists. if he couldn't even be
>>>> bothered to ask
>>>> before making himself a committer
>>>
>>> He's not required to ask, only to indicate his
>>> participation.
>>
>> asking is a matter of politeness and means that his participation is less
>> likely to be vetoed.
>>
>> a committer has responsibilities as well as rights. if i thought that a
>> committer was just dumping code into a component and had no intention of
>> maintaining that code, i wouldn't hesitate to veto.
>>
>
> I really offended by this comment, Robert.  The commit you refer to was
> not only well within my rights *and* responsibilities, clearly following
> both the spirit and letter of the asf, jakarta, and jakarta-commons
> guidelines, but also well within the bounds of politeness and courtesy.
> This commit was small (one class, about ~300 lines counting comments and
> blanks), unobtrusive (no new dependencies, configuration, extra processing
> or memory use was introduced), fully backwards compatible, and well within
> the scope of the project.  The "commit then review" protocol is clearly
> appropriate (and polite) in this circumstance.  If I need your explicit
> approval before making a small, unobtrusive, fully backwards compatible
> and in scope commit, then Guideline #15 (Each committer has karma to all
> the packages) is meaningless.

i'm sorry you feel this way rodney. i'd thought i'd made it clear that 
these criticisms don't apply to you.

i was trying (and failing) to speak in general terms.

the guidelines have an inbuilt mechanism whereby components may - if they 
wish - prevent a new existing commons committer joining. that is, they can 
veto the addition of the committers name to the list of developers for the 
component.

- robert


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message