geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Patch vote restart guidelines (was Re: [jira] Updated: (GERONIMO-2161) [RTC] Remove Geronimo modules from dependencyManagement in root pom.xml)
Date Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:52:53 GMT
I think in general you are correct John.  Although, from what I've seen the people that are

reviewing the patches are working with the submitter and then when they're happy give they're
+1.  I 
believe the spirit of RTC is being met through the current process.  Personally I'd prefer
to not 
increase the bureaucracy unless there is concern that the current process is being abused.

Jason Dillon wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2006, at 10:27 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>> IMO, a vote for a patch would be need to be restarted if the changes 
>> between the previous patch and the newer version of the patch are not 
>> trivial.  Trival meaning:
>> * documentation changes
>> * non-controversial non-semantic style changes such as fixing 
>> indentation and adding comments.
>> Trivial changes do not include code changes or changes that affect the 
>> operation of the build.
> In general I agree with you... but I'm not sure that this should apply 
> to what is going on for m2 work (or other similar types of work).
> If we tried to follow this, then almost everyday the latest patch needs 
> to be reapplied and re-approved by everyone.  Its been hard enough to 
> get people to apply any version of the patch.  I do not think, for this 
> work, that requiring folks to reapply/revalidate for every revision for 
> the RTC to complete is going to be effective.
> I am making significant progress on the m2 build and I really would 
> rather not wait for (days, weeks) for one patch to get approved before 
> continuing to work on the next steps.  I can also not really split up 
> these into incremental patches.
> I might have a different opinion of this entire situation if there were 
> more PMC members that were actually looking at these patches... say one 
> a day.  If I pump out an average of 1/2+ a patch a day, then...
> After 2 days, 2 PMC would have reviewed (and lets just say were +1), but 
> I have gotten further and have a new version of the patch now, so now 
> they need to do it again... and probably won't until tomorrow.
> After 3 days, the 3rd PMC got to the v2 patch and +1
> After 4 days, another PMC + 1, but another version is out... so scratch 
> the votes and start over.
> The only chance in this example is for 1-2 PMC members to review apply 
> each day.  If 1 on the first, then must be 2 on the second or 
> visa-versa.  Given the current PMC member activity, I don't believe it 
> will ever be possible (following this example) to every get anything 
> approved.
>  * * *
> How on earth is this going to work?  In this example I was being 
> optimistic about one +1 per day by a PMC member, but based on the 
> current status of GERONIMO-2161 it looks more like one +1 every 2 or 3 
> days.
> The alternative is to slow down... make less changes, waiting the time 
> for PMC members to vote on a single revision.  So, one +1 every 2 or 3 
> days turns into 6 to 9 days of idle time waiting for PMC members to 
> review/vote.  And since I have made 2 (almost 3 from todays work) 
> significant additions to the patch, that means about 18 to 27 days to 
> get the *additional* changes I have made in the past few days voted in 
> to be committed.
> The end result is a month+ has gone by, very little progress was 
> actually committed to the codebase to migrate to Maven 2.  At that rate, 
> maybe by this time next year we will have something ready.  Or, lets say 
> that the numbers are off... by 50% or so... well then it will only take 
> more months to implement the transition to m2.
> So if it takes 6mo to a year to transition to a new build system... how 
> long is it going to take to actually build features that are users 
> want?!  I'm not including any of the time spent so far with the m2 
> conversion... but from what I gather its already been in progress for 
> several months.  This is work that should be easily completed in a week 
> or so, given that there are people actively working on it.
>  * * *
> Maybe I have been smoking too much crack or popped one to many crazy 
> pills, but this really seems like a whacked-out impossible situation...
> --jason

View raw message