tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <>
Subject Re: Review model take 2
Date Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:51:33 GMT
jean-frederic clere wrote:
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
>> jean-frederic clere wrote:
>>> Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
>>>> Remy Maucherat wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Another more precise draft.
>>>>> Patches which would go to review would be:
>>>>> - API changing patches (any protected or above signature change) on
>>>>> APIs which are accessible to the user either from confirguration or
>>>>> programmatically
>>>> yes, makes sense
>>>>> - any other commit for which a committer asks for the RTC procedure
>>>>> should be rollbacked if it hinders concurrent work or is to be
>>>>> included in a release tag, and go through the RTC procedure
>>>> -1. There is a huge risk for "I simply don't like it, revert it".
>>>> Anything that is to be rolled back, should be backed up by a technical
>>>> reason. So in this case, how do you define "it hinders concurrent work".
>>>> Either we do RTC or we don't, but having a vague definition in between,
>>>> doesn't make sense.
>>> That is not: "I simply don't like it, revert it" that is "I think it
>>> needs review, revert it and let's discuss it".
>>> I would proposed that the one that does the -1 should come with another
>>> fix in few days for a fix for a PR, another proposal for API/conf
>>> changes and participate to the discussion on the -1 otherwise the -1
>>> would become is invalid.
>> The patch does not need to be reverted when under review, except if
>> there's a need to tag a release or something similar.
> Well I see at least 3 reasons to revert it:
> - Prevent accidental inclusion in a release.
> - Allow a more easy testing and evaluation of a another patch that fixes
> the same thing.
> - Force the community to look for another solution.

so to me this is spanking clear, that the process is vague, and before 
anything like this is implemented, it should be as black and white as 
RTC and CTR if it's gonna work
at this point, the vote doesn't make sense, as it is obvious folks 
aren't clear on the process being voted on.

> Cheers
> Jean-Frederic
>> In that case,
>> including such a patch would not be acceptable. The other case is if it
>> causes development issues, but it should be extremely rare (as API
>> changing patches would get reviewed before being committed).
>> I also don't think any reason needs to be given for voting against a
>> particular patch under review. If only one committer votes "no", then
>> you need one additional "yes" (4 total), which sounds achievable. If two
>> committers vote "no" (most likely you would be in a veto situation at
>> the moment) then it's still doable if everybody else wants it. With 3
>> against, the community is basically split, and it seems impossible to
>> follow through without changes to convince the other camp.
>> The general idea is to be able to disagree with something without using
>> something absolute like the veto mechanism, since the only thing that is
>> going to be examined (at least at the moment) seems to be its validity.
>> Also, if a vote is tied to a justification, then any discussions will
>> immediately switch over from technical to "let's show the justification
>> is not valid, so that we can ignore it" mode.
>> If it turns this new mechanism does not work, then I think new proposals
>> can be made to change it quite easily.
>> Rémy
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message