Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Message-ID: <4EFD8157.9050001@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:16:07 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?RW1tYW51ZWwgTMOpY2hhcm55?= <elecharny@apache.org>
Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org
Organization: The Apache Software Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Txn heads up
References: <4EFCFE0C.8040602@gmail.com>
 <CADwPi+FiGZ9Y=hYciU=4jO5W_9cc+kh2y5onNbfX0Dqg8NKt6Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADwPi+FiGZ9Y=hYciU=4jO5W_9cc+kh2y5onNbfX0Dqg8NKt6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 12/30/11 8:25 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> I'm trying to balance two different concerns with the activity I am seeing
> in the TXN branch. First I know we need to move forward on this matter and
> second I know Selcuk will be trying to work although with less time on this
> while dealing with a relocation and we're altering much of it: the moving
> target problem. Then again having more people capable of working in this
> region is a big plus. Let's just make sure that the changes are really
> necessary instead of just moving code around. That way we can make it
> easier for Selcuk to get back into the code when he has time.

I don't know what make you feel that we are just 'moving code around'. 
This is the first important commit done on this branch, and I carefully 
balanced the pros and cons of doing it. The reason why I pushed this big 
chunk of code is that I wasn't able to move forward without making a 
difference from mandatory changes (those I committed) and some changes I 
may want to revert. In any case, having pushed one unique commit is the 
guarantee we can rollback it completely in one shoot.

Now, everything in this commit has been discussed on the mailing list. 
There is no surprise, and nothing critical has been changed to the 
transaction layer (yet).

There is one single issue that need to be addressed, the encapsulation 
of transactions. This is not easy to address.

Obviously, it would be way easier if Selcuk had time to dedicate on 
this, but as he said, he is currently relocating, and is not available. 
He even asked on the mailing list for someone to relay him, which is 
what I'm doing. I guarantee you I'm extremely careful, and I'm not 
trying to go too fast.

Last, not least, as you said, having more than one committer being able 
to work on the code is not only important, it's vital. I have no idea if 
Selcuk's employer will allow him at all to continue to work on an OSS 
project (yes, this is a burden, and no, it's not about Selcuk, it's a 
problem for each one of us. In France, for instance, you have to ask 
your employer if you want to work on an OSS project, even on your own 
time). It would be very, very sad if it were the case, because Selcuk's 
code is really good and bring us to a level we would not have been able 
to reach without a lot of efforts.
>
> I know that none of us would make changes just to make a change. But here
> if you can just give some extra effort and consideration before making an
> alteration so we can keep it as familiar to Selcuk as possible when he gets
> back. Of course on the other hand if we have to advance and the change is
> critical then we must change it.
I think I have given all the extras efforts, plus a bit more, trust me 
on that. I *wish* I was not the only one spending time on this part of 
the code (Selcuk is helping as much as he can), it could be much better 
and faster. I appreciate that you care and share such a concern, though.

I'll be MIA for the next two days, so I wish an happy new year to all of 
you guys !

-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com