geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Date Tue, 23 May 2006 23:40:57 GMT
So, I think I did the first commit based on this policy, for  
GERONIMO-2006, what I think is a completely uncontroversial patch,  
and want to check out the timing factor.  The time from my proposal  
to patch to the third unequivocal +1 was 1hr 34 minutes.  (I couldn't  
tell if jsisson's +1 was for the bug fix part only or the whole  
patch, so I decided to be unreasonably pedantic and not count it:  
counting it the time was 56 minutes).

This might be fine for simple uncontroversial patches such as this  
one, but there's a danger that this won't allow much time for review,  
especially for complicated changes such as occurred during the  
configid/1.1 development.  Is there an apache standard minimum wait  
time or is this something we have to decide for ourselves?  I think  
it will be hard to balance proceeding with further work with giving  
adequate review time.

Personally I'm ok with committing immediately after 3 +1 votes and  
rolling back if there is a later -1.  I'm still mystified by the  
claims of intimidation and back-room deals so obviously I may not be  
a good judge of what is appropriate here.  I do think that a waiting  
period longer than 24 hours is likely to encourage gigantic full- 
feature patches that are extremely hard to review rather than little  
bits of incremental progress that can easily be comprehended at  
once.  We might be able  to use svk to reduce this problem, but that  
has its own problems (no idea plugin).

I'm going to be travelling and offline most of the time until next  
tuesday so will most likely have to pick up the discussion at that  
point.

thanks
david jencks

On May 21, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 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.
>
> This means that all code changes that aren't for
> documentation or a specific bug fix need to be
> submitted as patches to the dev@geronimo.apache.org
> list before getting committed.  They can get applied
> after three other committers have voted +1 -- which
> in this mode means 'I have applied this patch and
> tested it and found it good' -- and no committers
> have vetoed it.
>
> I'm doing this to put to rest widespread concerns
> that development in Geronimo *isn't* being done
> entirely in the open.  It's a drastic step, but
> those concerns have been around for a while and
> just don't seem to be going away.
>
> This also means that everyone needs to take interest
> in the changes being proposed for the code.  Everyone
> knowing more about what everyone else is doing isn't
> a bad thing, and cooperating more to get them made
> isn't a bad thing either.
> - --
> #ken	P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBRHD+TZrNPMCpn3XdAQJ9FwQAlwe2L+SvgffPyPSvXi0GjefJBSN/DZtQ
> CPE/OPkJrC8QxKegPsu4wRmYJK0HkilWkojglPYSZkKEP94fOIEA+R3Nh+IByo+D
> q8LF12qpkvxI9RjsEMEqa3+awNt7uag0GT0WgMDEX3VMupPRq3X52V7XiSzATqmp
> rwb0h13AQlc=
> =LjSH
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Mime
View raw message