geronimo-xbean-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: Reviewing and committing
Date Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:36:40 GMT
Any comments?  Should I let this go?


On Aug 24, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> I think David's comments on geronimo dev are spot on.
> Begin forwarded message:
>> More thoughts on the "where" and "how" topic.
>> So far my thoughts on "how"; review to your satisfaction and +1,  
>> 72 hour cut off.
>> As far as "where" ....
>> I'm inclined to say "at your discretion" where the following are  
>> encouraged:
>>  - Significant new functionality
>>  - Significant changes
>>  - Patches from Contributors
>>  - Borderline "fixes" to a stable branch
>> Whether or not it merits RTC would be at your discretion.  It is to
>> your advantage in these situations because:
>> - "Significant new functionality" and "Significant changes": It's a
>>    "Get out of jail free" card.  Having more people understand your
>>    code keeps you from spending all day on the user list.  You do
>>    support your code on the user list, right?
>> - "Patches from Contributors": Getting three votes for your patches
>>    is not a bad way to, in time, get your three votes to be a
>>    committer.  Let's be clear, someone who commits all your patches
>>    with no review from others on the project isn't doing you any
>>    favors.  It's in your interest to push to get your votes on every
>>    patch.
>> - "Borderline 'fixes' to a stable branch": It's a given you will
>>    think everything you want to put in a stable branch is important.
>>    But, is it a fix or is it a new feature?  If you think others may
>>    disagree, you may want to put it up for review or you may find
>>    yourself running the TCK all alone with no help.
>> Those are the advantages you stand to gain should you choose to  
>> use RTC for any of the above situations.  RTC is not the only way  
>> to get the above benefits, so it is at your discretion whether or  
>> not your situation merits it.
> The only think I would change is the "how" section at the top.  I  
> propose we follow this process:
> To commit you need either 3 +1 (no -1s) from a committer or 72  
> hours pass which ever happens first.  I suggest you complain loudly  
> if you get no comments after 48 hours.  As above a +1 means you  
> have "reviewed to you
> -dain

View raw message