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: [RTC] ?? Review requested on intermediate patches for pluggable JACC
Date Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:35:36 GMT


--- Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:

> I have two thoughts:
> 
> 1) we have an automated tool to track patches and it
> can track votes  
> and send out these reports.
> 
I'm not convinced automating this will work all that
well.  I do think that all +1 and suggestions should
be made as comments on the jira issue.  I think it can
be up to the proposer to kick people on the dev list
if it's getting ignored.  

If someone can really figure out how to do +1's in
jira automatically, fine.... i'm not a jira expert and
don't know how much this would conflict with the
current meaning of voting.


> 2) IMHO, if patchs start taking longer than a few
> days to get  
> committed, we as a project are not going to be
> successful.  I like  
> the discussions that RTC raise, but we also need to
> progress  
> quickly.  Over think will kill this project as fast
> as no-thinking.

 I completely agree.  We're still startng to learn how
to do RTC, but I think its already clear that without
fairly quick review turnaround there's a danger that
people will lose interest.  

thanks
david jencks

> 
> -dain
> 
> On Jun 16, 2006, at 3:35 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size
> wrote:
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > One thing that a number of the projects do is
> maintain a
> > STATUS file with open issues, and have it send to
> the
> > dev list once a week.
> >
> > This has been particularly useful for tracking the
> status
> > of patches during RTC.  When someone puts up a
> patch for
> > review, it gets added to the STATUS file with a
> brief
> > description and a pointer to where the patch can
> be
> > obtained.  As people review it, they add their
> +1/-1
> > votes to the item.
> >
> > This allows the whole project to see at any time
> what
> > patches are up for review, keeps the issues and
> opinions
> > together and unforgotten so the status doesn't
> need to
> > be culled from the mailing list, and so on.
> >
> > It's also useful for CTR environments, although
> it's
> > easier to forget to keep it maintained.  In RTC it
> > tends to serve as *the* authoritative reference
> for
> > what's going on; if it isn't in the STATUS file,
> it
> > isn't happening. :-)
> >
> > Here's an example:
> >
>
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/STATUS
> >
> > We *have* a STATUS file, which was last used
> during
> > incubation.  I propose we reactivate it for this
> purpise,
> > and I can add it to the job that already sends
> these out
> > for over a dozen other projects.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > - --
> > #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
> >
> >
>
iQCVAwUBRJKJgJrNPMCpn3XdAQLd3gQAj+ikphV6+2lOj533QjbSqJ9xdm/5T/Lm
> >
>
uFBhEhxSpOpv+CVss9Mh0WAC+Btlfby3ZRsvuY2ptyq8Wb1ZuMHR8QdxFZ2jua+A
> >
>
8C+8irJZtptG0oga2IYPn2iE5ikDjJ7Z5FvQtL3qc5xwrByFOvvi6EzHWII8w6ue
> > kCnYBsGI3Lk=
> > =bJXp
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message