shindig-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Lindner <lind...@inuus.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 19:16:06 GMT
There's a third way -- lazy consensus.   Send the review but commit if no
objections in a certain time period (as short as 24h)

Sending off a quick review shows respect for other team members, and is
also useful if you're wanting feedback.

And for simple, non controversial stuff we should all feel empowered to
commit first.  Don't need to see reviews for comments or line-endings :)

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
>
>


-- 
Paul Lindner -- lindner@inuus.com -- profiles.google.com/pmlindner

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message