geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <jgenen...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Date Wed, 24 May 2006 21:22:05 GMT
Matt,

I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one
of the 3)...

We have some nice patches coming up...

Dunno if that helps :/

Jeff


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 <Ken.Coar@golux.com> 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...
>>

Mime
View raw message