geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <jgenen...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Request change to RTC Process
Date Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:04:34 GMT
Kevan,

I totally agree with you.  I think "eyeballing" a patch is more than
good enough to wage a +1.  I surely do not have the time to apply and
test every patch.

Thanks,

Jeff


Kevan Miller wrote:
> I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by Geronimo
> (or at least I'm requesting a relaxation of Ken's interpretation of the
> RTC process).
> 
> In Ken's announcement of the change to the commit model, he stated that
> a +1 to an RTC request means "I have applied this patch and tested it
> and found it good". Although a relaxation of this interpretation has
> been suggested (or mentioned), to my knowledge nothing has actually
> changed.
> 
> In some areas of Geronimo (e.g. devtools), this is a cumbersome and
> difficult task for most committers. The fact that there are not more
> committers interested in these areas of Geronimo is an acknowledged
> issue. However, it's unlikely that current Geronimo committers want to
> be intimately familiar with some of these Geronimo components -- we've
> all had our chance to get involved, so far, but have chosen not to.
> 
> That's a specific problem with the current process. However, I think
> there's a general problem with this interpretation for all areas of
> Geronimo. IMO, this interpretation is not really helping to address the
> fundamental problems/concerns which have prompted the move to RTC. IMO,
> these concerns are that 1) some enhancements are not being properly
> communicated with the Geronimo community, 2) too many
> discussions/debates are occurring on private channels, and 3) some
> people are being intimidated to remain silent on some public discussions.
> 
> I'd like to see some specific RTC guidelines created for Geronimo. I'm
> sure other projects must have already crafted similar guidelines. So,
> I'd like to take a look at those, before spending too much time on
> creating guidelines from scratch (I'd also like to shove 1.1. out the
> door...)
> 
> In the meantime, I propose the following interpretation of a +1 vote to
> an RTC request:
> 
> "I have reviewed (and possibly tested) this patch and found it good. I
> understand the capability which the patch is adding and support the
> direction in which it is taking the Geronimo project"
> 
> Comments and suggestions are, of course, welcome...
> 
> --kevan
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message