geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Prasad Kashyap" <goyathlay.geron...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Date Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:47:48 GMT
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