geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Vote: RTC] needed for eclipse plugin
Date Sat, 03 Jun 2006 12:27:13 GMT

On Jun 3, 2006, at 12:13 AM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> On Jun 2, 2006, at 8:42 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>
>> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>> It seems that there are now +1's from 3 committers for this  
>>> change. Although I also support the change (once copyrights are  
>>> corected), I cannot offer a +1. Apologies for being a pedant, but  
>>> to my knowledge the current RTC "rules" we are living under are:
>>>
>>>   'I have applied this patch and tested it and found it good'
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that there's only one person who has done this  
>>> and his name is Sachin. Although it's likely that I could apply  
>>> the patch and build devtools, I wouldn't know how to integrate  
>>> and test the change.
>>>
>>> I think many of us feel that the requirement to apply and test a  
>>> patch is too restrictive and cumbersome -- especially in smaller  
>>> subprojects such as devtools and daytrader. Rather than ignoring  
>>> this directive, let's get the process changed or at least start a  
>>> discussion... I'll start a thread.
>>>
>> I will retract my +1, I mistakenly thought that the testing  
>> requirement was relaxed, but after reviewing the mailing lists I  
>> didn't see a response to Greg's comments on this topic:
>>
>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=114850042818334&w=2
>>
>> Agree that we need to discuss getting the process relaxed  
>> officially with Ken's approval.
>
> Looks like I have to retract my +1 also.  I merely spent an hour or  
> so carefully studying sachin's patch, but did not apply it or test  
> it.  Based on my careful review I think that the patch should be  
> applied.
>
> I support changing the process to require careful review rather  
> than applying and testing.

I've posted my proposal for an interpretation of an RTC +1 vote. Your  
votes were consistent, IMO, with this interpretation. Here's my +1  
under my interpretation of RTC.

Sachin committed his change with 3 +1's in effect. There have not  
been any -1's. So, I don't see any reason for Sachin to revert his  
commit. I don't think holding Sachin hostage does us any good as we  
noodle over the finer points of RTC.

--kevan

>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> John
>>> --kevan
>>>
>>> On Jun 1, 2006, at 9:42 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>>>
>>>> The following big change is part 1 of 2 to correctly handle  
>>>> loading of the deployment plan editors.  To briefly summarize,  
>>>> the change introduces a new extension point which requires an  
>>>> implementation of IGeronimoFormContentLoader.  Previously the  
>>>> editor extension point loaded the editor for 1.0 plans.  Now the  
>>>> editor must handle multiple versions of the deployment plans so  
>>>> now there is a single editor extension def which loads a single  
>>>> editor impl, SharedDeploymentEditor which loads all the  
>>>> IGeronimoFormContent loaders (one impl for 1.0 and another for  
>>>> 1.1) and delegates to the appropriate emf models to generate the  
>>>> UI for the plans.  With this commit, the 1.0 plans load  
>>>> correctly and there is some work still need to be done for 1.1  
>>>> to be done.  There is currently some duplicate code which will  
>>>> need to be refactored, part 2 will address this, but since the  
>>>> patch is about 3000 lines I wanted to go ahead and commit.
>>>>
>>>> Please vote...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> <patch2.txt>
>>>>
>>>> -sachin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message