Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of jrsisson@gmail.com designates
 66.249.92.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=c6wGZkNqj7dTVYI75fgc+5RxXEoKJgr5wBt4Mpjq8wK5jpMmm0iWzL/GgezdJtWj+PGk1aJoy1OjGuq6tVsnwp9JRZiDv6i3H1JH9A/lwVQvWY9aKTBcbPYIEWNyoROCITcDNDynh/p1EI0K6XutmAXk+KdCoHRnTJP8mcufbco=
Message-ID: <44AB1A0E.9010003@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 11:46:54 +1000
From: John Sisson <jrsisson@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: m2migration branch - thoughts?
References: <1b5bfeb50607031136p61248ac0k721b50933d788b8a@mail.gmail.com>
 <44AA8827.3010903@hogstrom.org>
In-Reply-To: <44AA8827.3010903@hogstrom.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> I think the Maven 2 work is a significant project.  It appears to me 
> that RTC has worked really well in increasing e-mail traffic on the 
> list exponentially but I too would agree that it has not been totally 
> productive.  Here is my assessment:
>
> 1. Everyone agrees that this work needs to be done.
>
> 2. The overall approach is generally accepted.
>
> 3. I believe that Jason and others that have been working on the 
> conversion (not to mention the voluminous amount of work on the part 
> of Prasad and Anita as well as Jencks) and understand what needs to be 
> done.
>
> 4. Maven 1 still works in trunk and Maven 2 is broken.
>
> I suggest that we agree that the team doing the conversion be allowed 
> to make the changes directly in trunk.  They are not disrupting 
> anything they are currently fixing a move to an already agreed to 
> build change.  Rather than have RTC be the model I move that we allow 
> them to continue to communicate through e-mail to keep everyone up to 
> date on the status of the migration.
>
> My goal is not to bypass RTC but merely to acknowledge that in the 
> case of this migration it is not the best tool to accomplish the task.
>
> John and Jacek since you are the active committers on the PMC perhaps 
> you can discuss this and provide some relief in the process.
>
Will follow up with the PMC.

Regards,
John
> Cheers.
>
> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> After having read so many emails with frustration and disgust, I think
>> we could get rid of these shortcomings and do the migration in a
>> branch - m2migration or alike. The idea of the branch would be to
>> loosen up the RTC rules that are bound to the trunk and let people
>> experimenting - do the migration without having to follow RTC,
>> preparing patches that don't work for everyone, but often very
>> temporarily until they're again fixed and improved.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Jacek
>>
>