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 Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:14:49 GMT
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.

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/javascript/
>>features/container/container.js 1365569
>>
>>http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/
>>features/rpc/rpc.js 1365569
>>
>>Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/6141/diff/
>>
>>
>>Testing
>>-------
>>
>>Tests pass.
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Dan Dumont
>

Mime
View raw message