tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Costin Manolache" <cos...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review model take 2
Date Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:27:14 GMT
On 9/21/07, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Just propose a polite way to move from the commit for a controversial
> > change ( i.e. when someone feels strongly it's going to the wrong
> > direction,
> > even
> > if technically code is ok ) to the majority and 3+1 process - and
> > we're
> > done.
> >
> > As you know - some people are complaining that veto is abused ( and
> > that's
> > right ),
> > many Rs turn into flame wars and get personal - so the issue is how
> > to avoid
> >
> > a technical code discussion for a non-technical or subjective issue.
> >
>
> First, it's important to recall that whether under CTR or RTC,
> there is always Review. If people, after something has
> been committed under CTR has issues with it, then
> that is Reviewing it after all. We already discussed
> technical voting, but what about "direction" or "vision"
> review. Or, as you said in a previous Email:
>
> > ... a polite way of  saying:
> >
> > "Hey, nothing wrong with the code itself, but I don't think there
> > is enough
> > support from
> > the community for the direction you're going - could you confirm
> > that a
> > majority and
> > at least 3 people think it fits our goals ?"
>
>
>
> That's still part of the review process... Vetoes are
> there to prevent code from being committed, but not
> all reviews are for the functional aspects of the
> actual code but rather to determine how much support
> there is for an implementation or feature... So I would
> say that this is still a valid and expected part
> of the R in *both* CTR and RTC.
>
> The thing is, of course, one cannot veto code based
> on non-technical reasons, but one can certainly review
> it based on such reasons and ask for some guidance that
> it makes sense. IMO, most of those types of cases
> should fall into the following types:
>
>    1. People who agree and will help support it,
>       implement it, etc... (+1)
>    2. People who don't care one way or another. (+0)
>    3. People who don't like it, but hey, if it helps
>       you out and there are other people behind it,
>       I won't stand in your way. (-0.9)
>    4. I don't like it and this is why. It would be
>       a mistake. (-1)



+1

If possible, add 5 and 6:

5. I may like it, but as a module that is not enabled by default.

6. I may like it, but as a standalone module, easy to download and install,
but not bundled
in the base distro.

Both 5 and 6 should be counted as -0.9 on the change itself, but as +0.9 if
the
concern is addressed.

Yes, if everyone understand this - and we stop using early commit/lazy
consensus
 and veto to get around R by a larger set of people - big +1.

I  like CTR and having an official trunk where active development happens -
but I don't like the endless discussion about veto validity and some big
changes
made without consensus or consultation - that was the main reason I support
a partial RTC until people get used to the idea of getting a +3 for
important changes.

Costin

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