geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bryan Noll <>
Subject Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Date Wed, 24 May 2006 23:27:23 GMT
I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about.  You'll see some JIRA's coming 
in the next 24 hrs. 

John Sisson wrote:
> 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 <>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>> out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many
>>>>>>> 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