geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: [RTC] ?? Review requested on intermediate patches for pluggable JACC
Date Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:51:19 GMT
I have two thoughts:

1) we have an automated tool to track patches and it can track votes  
and send out these reports.

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.


On Jun 16, 2006, at 3:35 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> 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:
> 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!"
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
> iQCVAwUBRJKJgJrNPMCpn3XdAQLd3gQAj+ikphV6+2lOj533QjbSqJ9xdm/5T/Lm
> uFBhEhxSpOpv+CVss9Mh0WAC+Btlfby3ZRsvuY2ptyq8Wb1ZuMHR8QdxFZ2jua+A
> 8C+8irJZtptG0oga2IYPn2iE5ikDjJ7Z5FvQtL3qc5xwrByFOvvi6EzHWII8w6ue
> kCnYBsGI3Lk=
> =bJXp

View raw message