geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Date Wed, 24 May 2006 21:23:56 GMT
I'd be happy to follow the dev of these 2 trees

On May 24, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and  
> working on DayTrader as well as DevTools.  DayTrader we have been  
> getting additional activity so we are moving in the right  
> direction.  Since its a performance/benchmark sample its very  
> different than the server and has a different constituency.  So,  
> yes, its a problem however interest is growing so the problem is  
> become less of an issue.
> Greg Stein wrote:
>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-)
>> Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more  
>> people
>> involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this
>> stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes."
>> IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of  
>> developers, and
>> especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if  
>> you can
>> get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of
>> Geronimo's issues at the same time.
>> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there  
>> are many
>> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from  
>> eyeballing
>> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't  
>> always need
>> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to
>> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-)
> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the  
> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like  
> the app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be  
> fixed) I was concerned that getting people to install, test and  
> validate was going to be difficult.  If people can use their eyes  
> thats fien.  Right now its changing colors and packaging.
> IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running  
> Eclipse and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback  
> will be difficult.  I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see  
> Sachin get slowed down.
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>> Ken, et al,
>>> I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions  
>>> to the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special  
>>> consideration for DevTools and DayTrader.  Both of these dev  
>>> trees are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such  
>>> have a very limited set of people working on them.  For Devtools  
>>> I think it is Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for  
>>> now.  Based on the requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing  
>>> and work I don't think we have enough active commiters in these  
>>> branches to make this work.
>>> I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to  
>>> Review and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader.
>>> Matt
>>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <> wrote:
>>>>>> Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting
>>>>>> made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model
>>>>>> for the time being.
>>>>>> Effective immediately, the development model for Apache
>>>>>> Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to
>>>>>> Review-Then-Commit.
>>>>> Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our  
>>>>> community
>>>>> to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the  
>>>>> pace,
>>>>> but...
>>>>> Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least  
>>>>> discussed here
>>>>> openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our
>>>>> cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you*  
>>>>> step
>>>>> out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could
>>>>> have come up with after having read it.
>>>> Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of
>>>> the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat
>>>> on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the
>>>> board before making any decisions...

View raw message