shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container implementations to more easily override and extend rpc registered service handlers. )
Date Thu, 26 Jul 2012 04:45:10 GMT
Yeah we could do that but wouldnt that commit the changes to the site
source repo?

- Henry

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Ryan Baxter <rbaxter85@gmail.com> wrote:
> What about using the staging site? :)
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.saputra@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Yes I can. Let me take a stab drafting one in the Shindig wiki so we
>> could discuss and improve.
>>
>> - Henry
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Ryan Baxter <rbaxter85@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Henry would you want to take a stab at drafting up Shindig's? :)
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.saputra@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Oh yeah totally not copying from Hadoop bylaws =)
>> >>
>> >> What I meant "similar" was to have a written bylaws as guidance for
>> >> committers and PMCs.
>> >>
>> >> - Henry
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
>> >> <mfranklin@mitre.org> wrote:
>> >> >>-----Original Message-----
>> >> >>From: Henry Saputra [mailto:henry.saputra@gmail.com]
>> >> >>Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:15 PM
>> >> >>To: dev@shindig.apache.org
>> >> >>Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container
>> >> >>implementations to more easily override and extend rpc registered
>> service
>> >> >>handlers. )
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I am thinking about having Apache Shindig bylaws similar to what
>> >> >>Apache Hadoop has: http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html which govern
>> >> >>how code commits should be conducted.
>> >> >
>> >> > +1, though I would use a different community's bylaws as an example
>> [1].
>> >>  Their definition of Lazy consensus is a little off to me.   Ross
>> Gardler
>> >> wrote Rave's and it covers the concept well[2].
>> >> >
>> >> > [1] http://hc.apache.org/bylaws.html  (note the section on
>> #Code_Review)
>> >> > [2] http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I'd like the simplicity of CTR but it needs to have good boundaries.
I
>> >> >>really dont want us to come back to the old model where commits
and
>> >> >>reviews just done with some people working in the same companies.
>> >> >>Reviews could be done early with some people but at the end should
>> >> >>targeted to dev list for final approval.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>- Henry
>> >> >>
>> >> >>On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
>> >> >><mfranklin@mitre.org> wrote:
>> >> >>> Most communities I have seen eventually adopt a Commit Then
Review
>> >> >>model over a Review Then Commit model.  Due to the complexity of
>> >> Shindig, I
>> >> >>can understand wanting to make sure that bigger changes are reviewed;
>> >> >>however, for trivial changes such as this, would it be easier to
just
>> >> commit the
>> >> >>change?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I am not a committer, so it is really up to you all.  IMO,
it is a
>> lot
>> >> of overhead
>> >> >>to review everything :) .  If you do move to a CTR model, I would
>> suggest
>> >> >>setting some boundaries so that you work into the model.  Maybe
saying
>> >> that
>> >> >>any change with x lines, etc.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>-----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>>From: Dan Dumont [mailto:noreply@reviews.apache.org] On
Behalf Of
>> Dan
>> >> >>>>Dumont
>> >> >>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:28 PM
>> >> >>>>To: shindig; Dan Dumont
>> >> >>>>Subject: Review Request: Allow container implementations
to more
>> easily
>> >> >>>>override and extend rpc registered service handlers.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >>>>This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>> >> >>>>https://reviews.apache.org/r/6141/
>> >> >>>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Review request for shindig.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Description
>> >> >>>>-------
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Change rpc registration to return the old handler if there
were any
>> so
>> >> that
>> >> >>>>container implementations may call into the previously registered
>> >> handler if
>> >> >>>>they wish to extend the existing behavior.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>This addresses bug SHINDIG-1827.
>> >> >>>>    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1827
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Diffs
>> >> >>>>-----
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascri
>> >> >>pt/
>> >> >>>>features/container/container.js 1365569
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascri
>> >> >>pt/
>> >> >>>>features/rpc/rpc.js 1365569
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/6141/diff/
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Testing
>> >> >>>>-------
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Tests pass.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Thanks,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Dan Dumont
>> >> >>>
>> >>
>>

Mime
View raw message