geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Sisson <jrsis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Date Wed, 24 May 2006 22:55:15 GMT
Jeff Genender wrote:
> 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...
>
>   
In the interests of being open and improving communications in the 
Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work you 
are planning to do.

Thanks,

John
> 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