geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jacek Laskowski" <>
Subject Re: [RTC] Vote on GERONIMO-2161 - restart 1
Date Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:59:17 GMT
On 7/7/06, David Jencks <> wrote:

> I think this will have an extremely debilitating and discouraging
> effect on everyone involved: no one can commit their own code.

Yes, it doesn't sound very entertaining. I'll have to think about it again.

> "No
> code ownership" is fine, but IMO everyone likes to commit their own
> work and say to themselves "I did it".

You're right again. What I meant was to ensure that a commit won't
break others' daily work only because not everything's been committed.
It's not that rarely when we couldn't build Geronimo from a fresh
checkout. The other effect is that it makes the change known to more
than a very few people which increases changes to fix it in case of

>  I think it will also tend to
> give the PMC members even more work to do, which they already don't
> have time for, and is likely to widen the divide between committers
> and PMC members.  It will also be IMO rather confusing: despite
> review by 3 PMC members I expect the changes will still be best
> understood by their author, and if the author is NEVER the committer,
> it will be nearly impossible to find out who was responsible.

That's what I thought we want to avoid, i.e. that a change is best
understood by its author. That's what makes that some areas are not
handled very well and only when Dave J. is involved a fix might be

Re more work for PMCers, it's not quite true - we've already got more
work than it's necessary before RTC and only PMCers' votes are binding
so we have to do it anyway. When one claims a change has been tested
and +1'ed eventually, it means that the process of applying the change
has already been done so the additional step would be to execute 'svn
ci'. What additional work are we talking about - svn ci?


Jacek Laskowski

View raw message