geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Dillon" <jason.dil...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Date Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:35:53 GMT
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...
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Mime
View raw message