geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sachin Patel <sppat...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Request change to RTC Process
Date Sat, 03 Jun 2006 12:39:27 GMT
+1

On Jun 3, 2006, at 8:14 AM, 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
>
>
>


-sachin



Mime
View raw message