geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <>
Subject Re: Returning to Commit-Then-Review?
Date Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:18:26 GMT

On Aug 22, 2006, at 7:33 PM, Brett Porter wrote:

>> From the peanut gallery...
> On 23/08/06, David Blevins <> wrote:
>> I'd be more inclined to talk about what we want to apply it to and  
>> how.
>> That said, I've stared at this email for an hour after writing the
>> above sentence and am still not sure what the answer would be....
>> Part of me wouldn't mind seeing an RTC process where
>>   - it's not enforced. meaning we could pull the plug whenever we  
>> like
> So, that would be RTC by lazy consensus? After 72 hours it gets
> committed anyway if there are no -1's?

No, more like "we as a project choose to do RTC of our own free will  
and reserve the right to switch models or evolve it to a new model"   
I think the fact that it will be a conscious choice as opposed to  
being imposed is a significant difference.

But the lazy consensus "cut off" you mention is something to think  

>>   - your +1 could simply mean you've reviewed it to your satisfaction
>> (whatever that means for you) and agree with the change.
> I think I'd ask people to just +0 or say that to be clear so you know
> how well tested it was. You don't want to be asking what their +1
> really meant.

I'm fine with a +1 and an optional comment as to how it was  
reviewed.  I'm not as concerned about testing as I am about getting  
people to see, understand, and *support* the changes.

I went to the extreme to build a cluster of computers to  
automatically build, test, and tck certify all active Geronimo  
branches 24x7, so I'm understandably less concerned about testing.   
If someone breaks Geronimo, we'll know.

I just want to know that there are three people that have Read,  
Understand, and Support the changes.  This is significant in that  
there are now 4 people who can support that code rather than just  
one.  Definitely my biggest concern by far.

>> Tempted to also throw in "three +1s from any committer other than the
>> proposer are sufficient", but if that's going to be a topic of
>> debate, I'd rather see it put on hold and the first two items
>> implemented first.
> The first one sort of allows this. I think anything that encourages
> more committers to review is a good thing.
> So, are you saying you don't think Geronimo is ready for CTR yet?

I don't know if I'm ready, no.  Don't know how the other guys/gals  
feel on if they're ready.

> One thing that struck me is that if there was trouble getting reviews
> done under RTC then its likely to be that CTR dissolves to just C :)

We don't know that, really.  What we do know is that we had a hard  
time getting people to successfully apply and build all patches.  But  
we really don't have a good sense of how much we can review in the  
sense of reading, understanding and agreeing to changes.

> So perhaps some work on building a culture of review (including
> ensuring enough committers have an eye on each area of the code) is
> still helpful, with steps such as those you've highlighted.

That's what's in my head currently.  Still waiting to hear what  
others say.


View raw message