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: Request change to RTC Process
Date Sat, 03 Jun 2006 12:52:51 GMT
+1
Cheers
Anita

--- Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by  
> Geronimo (or at least I'm requesting a relaxation of Ken's  
> interpretation of the RTC process).
> 
> In Ken's announcement of the change to the commit model, he stated  
> that a +1 to an RTC request means "I have applied this patch and  
> tested it and found it good". Although a relaxation of this  
> interpretation has been suggested (or mentioned), to my knowledge  
> nothing has actually changed.
> 
> In some areas of Geronimo (e.g. devtools), this is a cumbersome and  
> difficult task for most committers. The fact that there are not more 
> 
> committers interested in these areas of Geronimo is an acknowledged  
> issue. However, it's unlikely that current Geronimo committers want  
> to be intimately familiar with some of these Geronimo components --  
> we've all had our chance to get involved, so far, but have chosen not
>  
> to.
> 
> That's a specific problem with the current process. However, I think 
> 
> there's a general problem with this interpretation for all areas of  
> Geronimo. IMO, this interpretation is not really helping to address  
> the fundamental problems/concerns which have prompted the move to  
> RTC. IMO, these concerns are that 1) some enhancements are not being 
> 
> properly communicated with the Geronimo community, 2) too many  
> discussions/debates are occurring on private channels, and 3) some  
> people are being intimidated to remain silent on some public  
> discussions.
> 
> I'd like to see some specific RTC guidelines created for Geronimo.  
> I'm sure other projects must have already crafted similar guidelines.
>  
> So, I'd like to take a look at those, before spending too much time  
> on creating guidelines from scratch (I'd also like to shove 1.1. out 
> 
> the door...)
> 
> In the meantime, I propose the following interpretation of a +1 vote 
> 
> to an RTC request:
> 
> "I have reviewed (and possibly tested) this patch and found it good. 
> 
> I understand the capability which the patch is adding and support the
>  
> direction in which it is taking the Geronimo project"
> 
> Comments and suggestions are, of course, welcome...
> 
> --kevan
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

Mime
View raw message