geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brett Porter" <brett.por...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Date Thu, 01 Jun 2006 23:58:23 GMT
Umm, you guys do realise that there are already 4 people besides anita
that have said 'I don't think this requires RTC', who could just have
easily +1'd the RTC, right?

:)

Cheers,
Brett

On 02/06/06, John Sisson <jrsisson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
Apache Maven - http://maven.apache.org
"Better Builds with Maven" book - http://library.mergere.com/

Mime
View raw message