geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: M2 : car-maven-plugin and geronimo-plugin.xml files
Date Tue, 08 Aug 2006 06:18:50 GMT
On Aug 7, 2006, at 10:33 PM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> This code is from servlets-examples-jetty config (rev 429124):
>        <resources>
>             <resource>
>                 <directory>${pom.basedir}/src/conf</directory>
>                 <targetPath>META-INF</targetPath>
>                 <includes>
>                     <include>geronimo-plugin.xml</include>
>                 </includes>
>                 <filtering>true</filtering>
>             </resource>
>         </resources>
>
>    This code has been added to many applications config. Which means
> that you are trying to write it yourself and have no intention of  
> using
> the patch.

I was simply reusing the existing Maven2 resources plugin to handle  
filtering of resources.

I looked over your patch and could not apply it directly due to the  
number of other changes made to the tree since the patch was  
originally crafted.


> Why did you ask me to make the patch?

I asked you to roll new patches against m2migration and not off of  
trunk so that I could quickly verify and apply them.


> Vow.. I don't blame you for exercising the power of a committer. you
> get to commit code that does nothing and reject the code that works!
> You have the power to shut down other peoples work.

I am starting to take offense to some of these comments you are  
making.  I'm not sure if you are trying to goat me into a conflict or  
if you are trying to resolve the work you have done and move forward.

:-(


> Jason, I was also aware of the issues with the code and had been
> wanting to fix them and add more functionality. You are constantly
> changing the code that I wrote without any communication. You have  
> made
> it _impossible_ for me to work on this code. I am not saying that you
> are doing it intentionally.

Since these commits end up with my user id attached to them, I am not  
willing to commit something that does not meet my standards for  
quality.  I am not trying to invalidate your work, I am trying to get  
our m2 build functional and at the same time ensure a high standard  
of quality for the code that supports it.


> IMO, you should have accepted the code
> because it provided the required functionality and allowed me to make
> improvements.

The code submitted in the patches that I reviewed (and some that I  
committed and then changed) were not using the Mojo API appropriately  
or effectively.  Just because a chunk of code "works" does not mean  
that it should be blindly applied to the tree.

I accepted the bulk of the code and cleaned it up to meet my  
standards before I committed it.  Though some of your code I have not  
even begun to review since it is scattered amongst several issues and  
then into several patches in those issues, which makes it much harder  
for me to quickly verify and commit.

Last time I checked the new patches are still using velocity and  
custom file deletion bits instead of using the existing Plexus  
support tools that handle this for you.... and nothing is commented.   
So it is much more difficult for me to simply commit this.


> I agree with Hiram Chirino on this subject. I am quoting
> from a conversation on the list :
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--RTC--ActiveMQ-GBean-modules-p4867711.html
>
> "Perhaps I should start a new thread on this thought, but I just  
> wanted
> to comment that we need to be careful about how critical and the level
> of perfection that we expect from the contributed patches.  I would
> say that if a patch does not regress the project and it moves it
> forward in the right direction, the patch should be accepted even if
> it's not perfect.
>
> It kind of reminds me of something David B told me once, if the code
> is perfect and stable, you won't be able to build a community around
> the project it since it just works.  This makes sense to me.  If the
> code is 80% of the way there, then you give an opportunity for folks
> to join your community by submitting additional patches that help it
> get to the 100% mark."

I generally agree with Hiram, though I don't think that we can allow  
build infrastructure related patches of diminished quality to be  
applied with out retrofitting them... or we will just make a larger  
mess for everyone to deal with.

  * * *

I am sorry that you are upset about the situation related to your  
patches.  I would really like for us to get past this and get back to  
being productive.

But, to be honest with you... the more defensive emails like this  
that you post, the less I want to continue working on the related  
issues.  I want to get the m2 work behind us and not get bogged down  
with conflict with those who are helping that work.

Again, I am sorry you are upset... but can we please try to move  
forward?

--jason



Mime
View raw message