geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Sisson <jrsis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Date Thu, 01 Jun 2006 23:46:14 GMT
I agree that "merging" shouldn't require another RTC.  So merging of 
your m2 migration changes should be OK.

We need to discuss the situation where merging a change from a branch to 
trunk isn't a just a simple merge.  For example, manual changes needed 
to be made, e.g. changes to logic because the trunk has moved in a 
different direction to the branch you are merging from.  IMHO, in this 
scenario, it would be worth discussing the changes on the dev list 
before proceeding with the merge. Comments on this scenario?

John

Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Prasad,
>
> I saw Anita's changes and started reviewing them.  Unfortunately, they 
> required more time than I had at the moment and I won't get back to 
> them until this weekend I suspect.
>
> I think that since this is a merge of existing work should not 
> necessarily require review since it was existing and we've made the 
> decision to have it merged forward.  The ROUS will probably need to 
> comment here.  So long as Jaceck is overseeing the work that was 
> previously committed I'm ok with not requiring RTC for this.
>
> Matt
>
> Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>> 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