geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
Subject Re: [SUMMARY] Proposed Geronimo Development Processes
Date Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:34:04 GMT

Jason Dillon wrote:
> Thanks Kevan for the summary, I think this really helps.
> More comments below inline...
> On Sep 6, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> 1. Relaxed RTC
>> ...
>> * 3 +1 votes from committers on the project (1 of these committers 
>> needs to be a member of the PMC) with no outstanding -1 votes.
> I don't think that we need a requirement of a PMC vote here.  The PMC 
> can provide enough oversight w/o a required vote.  IMO, a vote is a vote 
> is a vote... I don't put any weight over a committers vote to a PMC 
> members vote.  I value them both equally.  Forcing a PMC vote here is 
> artificial and promotes separatism rather than unity.

I'm fine with removing the PMC requirement.

>> 3. CTR with documentation guidelines
>> Geronimo follows a Commit-Then-Review model. There should be an 
>> emphasis of community communication. Community-based policing and 
>> persuasion will be used to remedy any problem areas. Guidelines are 
>> not strict dogma -- common sense should prevail. Community 
>> communication is the key, not a process. General guidelines are:
>> * Non-trivial changes (and certainly potentially controversial 
>> changes) should be announced on the dev list. This announcement should 
>> be well in advance of the change being committed. The community should 
>> be given the opportunity to understand and discuss the proposal.
>> * Concurrent with the commit of a significant change, the committer 
>> should document the change on the dev list. You should describe what 
>> you are doing, describe why you are doing it, and provide an overview 
>> of how you implemented it.
> This feels a whole lot like common-sense for how to participate on an 
> open-source project.  In most cases, I think this is also the best model 
> to run under... though I do believe that RTC has some merit as well.

Common sense and decency is what I would like to see ;-)

> If it was up to me (which it isn't, but here is my opinion anyways), I 

I think everyone's input counts.

> would use a hybrid model, which would default to CTR (with emphasis on 
> common sense and communication) and for non-trivial or potentially 
> controversial changes follow the RTC with Lazy Consensus as described in 
> #2 (with the addition of inclusion of development branches or patches, 
> depending on the complexity).  I actually think that this is 
> common-sense too.

I concur.

> But Jason... I think you are on crack... and I want to smoke some too!
> Okay, you are on your own there... just make sure you clean your pipe, 
> cause their ain't nuthing worse than a dirty ole crack pipe. :-P

Your knowledge of controlled / illegal substances boggles my mind.  I'm wondering if there
dark secret times in your life where you secretly are in love with Windows as a primary OS

> --jason

View raw message