geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Request change to RTC Process
Date Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:22:40 GMT

--- Dain Sundstrom <> wrote:

> On Jun 17, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size
> wrote:
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >> On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size
> <> wrote:
> >>> If that means things languish for weeks or
> months, then
> >>> that's what it means.
> >>
> >> I don't think this is a good idea.
> >
> > RTC means tested quality, not assumed quality.  If
> you
> > can't find people to test the quality of
> something, it
> > doesn't go in because the quality isn't assured.
> Ken, I think you have a faulty assumption that this
> project cares  
> about what you call "tested quality".  I for one am
> fine with changes  
> that haven't been tested to the level you are
> demanding from this  
> project.  Personally, I'd like to see less perfect
> software that  
> people want to use, other than perfect software that
> is so  
> functionally incomplete that no one will uses it.
> If the community agrees with me, is there anything
> we can do to  
> change your process or are we just stuck with it?
> -dain 

Ken, I think you are changing the story about the
purpose of RTC and I would like to know  why.  Your
original edict was:

On May 21, 2006, at 7:57 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size

Hash: SHA1

Due to concerns about how some changes have been
made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model
for the time being.

Effective immediately, the development model for
Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to

This means that all code changes that aren't for
documentation or a specific bug fix need to be
submitted as patches to the
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 
Author, developer, opinionist     

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -



Read it carefully.  You do not mention the word
"quality" once.  You do express concern about "how
some changes have been getting made in the codebase" 
and sa y IIUC that the purpose is to assure that  we
are communicating with each other about all changes. 
The closest to a mention of quality to my eyes is
"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."

Tieing the phrase "found it good" to quality seems
disingenuous to me.  To me it primarily means, "this
moves the project in a direction I approve of", not
"this has few bugs"

I'd also like to point out that insisting that anyone
apply a patch and test it is actually likely to reduce
quality over simply inspecting the patch carefully. 
I'm sure you are well aware of all the studies on code
inspection that show that code inspection is the
fastest cheapest and most reliable way to eliminate
defects.  Personally I trust ALL the geronimo
committers to have verified that any patch they
propose applies cleanly, keeps all unit tests passing,
and results in a server that starts.  I would much
rather 3 other people look carefully at my code than
all the committers verify that I'm not lying that the
patch can be applied and doesn't break anything
obvious, which is what your requirement boils down to.

I repeat dain's question, is this process something
the project  gets to decide on or only you?

My point of view at this time is that I think having 3
people review patches before or after they are 
applied is a good idea that will improve the
community, but that requiring anyone to verify that a 
patch applies, builds, and runs is a waste of
everyones time that will reduce overall software
quality and reduce the number of people willing to
contribute to geronimo.  Can you please supply any
evidence that your assertion that asking people to
apply a patch, build the result, etc, provides better
quality than spending the same time in code

david jencks

View raw message