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 Fri, 02 Jun 2006 02:29:16 GMT
Haha.. Good point. But shouldn't those 4 people have reviewed the
oodles of lines of code in some 50+ files before +1'ing ?

Cheers
Prasad

On 6/1/06, Brett Porter <brett.porter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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