incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Raymond Feng" <>
Subject Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
Date Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:17:10 GMT

Sorry for the confusion as I'm new to this situation. I meant to get the 
code into SVN as a base for discussion. I chose the paticular branch simply 
because I only need minor effort to get the code built.

I moved the code to my sandbox for now 
( and 
removed it from the branch.

I'll start another thread to discuss if and/or how we can accept the 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ant elder" <>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]

> On 2/25/07, Jeremy Boynes <> wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, wrote:
>> > Author: rfeng
>> > Date: Fri Feb 23 22:26:55 2007
>> > New Revision: 511225
>> >
>> > URL:
>> > Log:
>> > [sca-integration-branch] Add EJB reference binding (TUSCANY-1126)
>> -1
>> There has been no discussion at all about this contribution in the
>> community. We've had someone from a vendor attach code in JIRA, a co-
>> worker say they would review and "possibly check it into a sandbox"
>> and then this commit to a branch only the vendor's employees are
>> working on. Not one single mail to the dev list. This isn't community
>> development, it's a code dump.
>> Please take this out of SVN and talk to the community about it - you
>> might find people are interested in it.
> Could one of our mentors/IPMCers comment on if this -1 comes with enough 
> of
> a technical reason to make it a veto? If thats the case you need to revert
> the commit now before anymore discussion Raymond.
> Hopefully there will be discussion and development of the ejb binding on 
> the
> ML in future, but the way its been done I don't think warrants it being
> removed right now. As I understand it there has been a CCLA received by
> Apache for the code. In the past there's been a lot of similar sized
> function committed to Tuscany trunk with no discussion until afterwards, 
> and
> this code didn't get put in the trunk. More discussion would be better but 
> I
> think one reason people do it this way may be as its easier to talk about
> things once there is actual code in SVN to refer to and try out. The 
> commit
> was done late on Friday probably they're off for the weekend now, so how
> about waiting to see if they start discussions about this contribution on
> Monday.
>   ...ant
> PS, Rashmi, this looks really good to me and nicely written, i think it
> would be a great addition to Tuscany. Hope you don't get put off by this
> procedural debate and and can stick around to help develop Tuscany 
> further.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message