geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From anita kulshreshtha <a_kuls...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Date Thu, 01 Jun 2006 19:13:46 GMT
Jason,
   Thanks. I did start from the old trunk and moved everything to 1.1.
The changes made to the existing code (from old trunk) are documented
here 
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-851#action_12413522
   The old and new code does not affect M1 build. There is a separate
patch (1 line !) called deploy-tool.patch to switch between M1 and M2
builds. 

Thanks
Anita 

--- Jason Dillon <jason.dillon@planet57.com> wrote:

> I say we just commit the lot of them. Should have no affect on the m1
> build, so risk is low. 
> 
> Let's just get the bits from the dead branch onto trunk and then go
> from there. 
> 
> --jason
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Prasad Kashyap" <goyathlay.geronimo@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:47:48 
> To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
> 
> Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She
> had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy.
> 
> A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed
> into
> the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the
> new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should
> they
> now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ?
> 
> Cheers
> Prasad
> 
> On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <bwnoll@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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 <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...
> > >>>>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Mime
View raw message