You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com> on 2006/06/01 14:47:48 UTC
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She
had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy.
A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed into
the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the
new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should they
now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ?
Cheers
Prasad
On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <bw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming
> in the next 24 hrs.
>
> John Sisson wrote:
> > Jeff Genender wrote:
> >> Matt,
> >>
> >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one
> >> of the 3)...
> >>
> >> We have some nice patches coming up...
> >>
> >>
> > In the interests of being open and improving communications in the
> > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work
> > you are planning to do.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
> >> Dunno if that helps :/
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >>
> >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and
> >>> working
> >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting
> >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. Since its
> >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and
> >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however interest
> >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue.
> >>>
> >>> Greg Stein wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more
> >>>> people
> >>>> involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this
> >>>> stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes."
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of
> >>>> developers, and
> >>>> especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if
> >>>> you can
> >>>> get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of
> >>>> Geronimo's issues at the same time.
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are
> >>>> many
> >>>> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from
> >>>> eyeballing
> >>>> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't
> >>>> always need
> >>>> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to
> >>>> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-)
> >>>>
> >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the
> >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like the
> >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be fixed) I
> >>> was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was
> >>> going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats fien. Right
> >>> now its changing colors and packaging.
> >>>
> >>> IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running Eclipse
> >>> and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be
> >>> difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get
> >>> slowed
> >>> down.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -g
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Ken, et al,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to
> >>>>> the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special
> >>>>> consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees
> >>>>> are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very
> >>>>> limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is
> >>>>> Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the
> >>>>> requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we
> >>>>> have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review
> >>>>> and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Matt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting
> >>>>>>>> made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model
> >>>>>>>> for the time being.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Effective immediately, the development model for Apache
> >>>>>>>> Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to
> >>>>>>>> Review-Then-Commit.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our
> >>>>>>> community
> >>>>>>> to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace,
> >>>>>>> but...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed
> >>>>>>> here
> >>>>>>> openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our
> >>>>>>> cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step
> >>>>>>> out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could
> >>>>>>> have come up with after having read it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of
> >>>>>> the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat
> >>>>>> on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the
> >>>>>> board before making any decisions...
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
Haha.. Good point. But shouldn't those 4 people have reviewed the
oodles of lines of code in some 50+ files before +1'ing ?
Cheers
Prasad
On 6/1/06, Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Umm, you guys do realise that there are already 4 people besides anita
> that have said 'I don't think this requires RTC', who could just have
> easily +1'd the RTC, right?
>
> :)
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On 02/06/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree that "merging" shouldn't require another RTC. So merging of
> > your m2 migration changes should be OK.
> >
> > We need to discuss the situation where merging a change from a branch to
> > trunk isn't a just a simple merge. For example, manual changes needed
> > to be made, e.g. changes to logic because the trunk has moved in a
> > different direction to the branch you are merging from. IMHO, in this
> > scenario, it would be worth discussing the changes on the dev list
> > before proceeding with the merge. Comments on this scenario?
> >
> > John
> >
> > Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> > > Prasad,
> > >
> > > I saw Anita's changes and started reviewing them. Unfortunately, they
> > > required more time than I had at the moment and I won't get back to
> > > them until this weekend I suspect.
> > >
> > > I think that since this is a merge of existing work should not
> > > necessarily require review since it was existing and we've made the
> > > decision to have it merged forward. The ROUS will probably need to
> > > comment here. So long as Jaceck is overseeing the work that was
> > > previously committed I'm ok with not requiring RTC for this.
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> > >> Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She
> > >> had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy.
> > >>
> > >> A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed into
> > >> the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the
> > >> new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should they
> > >> now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ?
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Prasad
> > >>
> > >> On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <bw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming
> > >>> in the next 24 hrs.
> > >>>
> > >>> John Sisson wrote:
> > >>> > Jeff Genender wrote:
> > >>> >> Matt,
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me
> > >>> as one
> > >>> >> of the 3)...
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> We have some nice patches coming up...
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> > In the interests of being open and improving communications in the
> > >>> > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work
> > >>> > you are planning to do.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Thanks,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > John
> > >>> >> Dunno if that helps :/
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Jeff
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and
> > >>> >>> working
> > >>> >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting
> > >>> >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction.
> > >>> Since its
> > >>> >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the
> > >>> server and
> > >>> >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however
> > >>> interest
> > >>> >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue.
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>> Greg Stein wrote:
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-)
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more
> > >>> >>>> people
> > >>> >>>> involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on
> > >>> this
> > >>> >>>> stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes."
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of
> > >>> >>>> developers, and
> > >>> >>>> especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if
> > >>> >>>> you can
> > >>> >>>> get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of
> > >>> >>>> Geronimo's issues at the same time.
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there
> > >>> are
> > >>> >>>> many
> > >>> >>>> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from
> > >>> >>>> eyeballing
> > >>> >>>> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't
> > >>> >>>> always need
> > >>> >>>> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be
> > >>> important to
> > >>> >>>> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-)
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the
> > >>> >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really
> > >>> like the
> > >>> >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be
> > >>> fixed) I
> > >>> >>> was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was
> > >>> >>> going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats
> > >>> fien. Right
> > >>> >>> now its changing colors and packaging.
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>> IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running
> > >>> Eclipse
> > >>> >>> and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be
> > >>> >>> difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get
> > >>> >>> slowed
> > >>> >>> down.
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>>> Cheers,
> > >>> >>>> -g
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>>> Ken, et al,
> > >>> >>>>>
> > >>> >>>>> I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding
> > >>> exceptions to
> > >>> >>>>> the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special
> > >>> >>>>> consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev
> > >>> trees
> > >>> >>>>> are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have
> > >>> a very
> > >>> >>>>> limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think
> > >>> it is
> > >>> >>>>> Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on
> > >>> the
> > >>> >>>>> requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't
> > >>> think we
> > >>> >>>>> have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work.
> > >>> >>>>>
> > >>> >>>>> I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to
> > >>> Review
> > >>> >>>>> and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader.
> > >>> >>>>>
> > >>> >>>>> Matt
> > >>> >>>>>
> > >>> >>>>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > >>> >>>>>
> > >>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> > >>> >>>>>>
> > >>> >>>>>>
> > >>> >>>>>>> On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> > >>> >>>>>>>
> > >>> >>>>>>>
> > >>> >>>>>>>> Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting
> > >>> >>>>>>>> made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model
> > >>> >>>>>>>> for the time being.
> > >>> >>>>>>>>
> > >>> >>>>>>>> Effective immediately, the development model for Apache
> > >>> >>>>>>>> Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to
> > >>> >>>>>>>> Review-Then-Commit.
> > >>> >>>>>>>>
> > >>> >>>>>>> Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our
> > >>> >>>>>>> community
> > >>> >>>>>>> to understand changes before they get applied and keep up
> > >>> the pace,
> > >>> >>>>>>> but...
> > >>> >>>>>>>
> > >>> >>>>>>> Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least
> > >>> discussed
> > >>> >>>>>>> here
> > >>> >>>>>>> openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our
> > >>> >>>>>>> cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if
> > >>> *you* step
> > >>> >>>>>>> out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many
> > >>> could
> > >>> >>>>>>> have come up with after having read it.
> > >>> >>>>>>>
> > >>> >>>>>>>
> > >>> >>>>>> Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of
> > >>> >>>>>> the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat
> > >>> >>>>>> on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the
> > >>> >>>>>> board before making any decisions...
> > >>> >>>>>>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Apache Maven - http://maven.apache.org
> "Better Builds with Maven" book - http://library.mergere.com/
>
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>.
Umm, you guys do realise that there are already 4 people besides anita
that have said 'I don't think this requires RTC', who could just have
easily +1'd the RTC, right?
:)
Cheers,
Brett
On 02/06/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that "merging" shouldn't require another RTC. So merging of
> your m2 migration changes should be OK.
>
> We need to discuss the situation where merging a change from a branch to
> trunk isn't a just a simple merge. For example, manual changes needed
> to be made, e.g. changes to logic because the trunk has moved in a
> different direction to the branch you are merging from. IMHO, in this
> scenario, it would be worth discussing the changes on the dev list
> before proceeding with the merge. Comments on this scenario?
>
> John
>
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> > Prasad,
> >
> > I saw Anita's changes and started reviewing them. Unfortunately, they
> > required more time than I had at the moment and I won't get back to
> > them until this weekend I suspect.
> >
> > I think that since this is a merge of existing work should not
> > necessarily require review since it was existing and we've made the
> > decision to have it merged forward. The ROUS will probably need to
> > comment here. So long as Jaceck is overseeing the work that was
> > previously committed I'm ok with not requiring RTC for this.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> >> Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She
> >> had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy.
> >>
> >> A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed into
> >> the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the
> >> new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should they
> >> now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ?
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Prasad
> >>
> >> On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <bw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming
> >>> in the next 24 hrs.
> >>>
> >>> John Sisson wrote:
> >>> > Jeff Genender wrote:
> >>> >> Matt,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me
> >>> as one
> >>> >> of the 3)...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We have some nice patches coming up...
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> > In the interests of being open and improving communications in the
> >>> > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work
> >>> > you are planning to do.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> >
> >>> > John
> >>> >> Dunno if that helps :/
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Jeff
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and
> >>> >>> working
> >>> >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting
> >>> >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction.
> >>> Since its
> >>> >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the
> >>> server and
> >>> >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however
> >>> interest
> >>> >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Greg Stein wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-)
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more
> >>> >>>> people
> >>> >>>> involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on
> >>> this
> >>> >>>> stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes."
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of
> >>> >>>> developers, and
> >>> >>>> especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if
> >>> >>>> you can
> >>> >>>> get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of
> >>> >>>> Geronimo's issues at the same time.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there
> >>> are
> >>> >>>> many
> >>> >>>> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from
> >>> >>>> eyeballing
> >>> >>>> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't
> >>> >>>> always need
> >>> >>>> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be
> >>> important to
> >>> >>>> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-)
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the
> >>> >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really
> >>> like the
> >>> >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be
> >>> fixed) I
> >>> >>> was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was
> >>> >>> going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats
> >>> fien. Right
> >>> >>> now its changing colors and packaging.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running
> >>> Eclipse
> >>> >>> and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be
> >>> >>> difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get
> >>> >>> slowed
> >>> >>> down.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>> Cheers,
> >>> >>>> -g
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>> Ken, et al,
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding
> >>> exceptions to
> >>> >>>>> the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special
> >>> >>>>> consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev
> >>> trees
> >>> >>>>> are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have
> >>> a very
> >>> >>>>> limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think
> >>> it is
> >>> >>>>> Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on
> >>> the
> >>> >>>>> requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't
> >>> think we
> >>> >>>>> have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to
> >>> Review
> >>> >>>>> and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Matt
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting
> >>> >>>>>>>> made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model
> >>> >>>>>>>> for the time being.
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> Effective immediately, the development model for Apache
> >>> >>>>>>>> Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to
> >>> >>>>>>>> Review-Then-Commit.
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our
> >>> >>>>>>> community
> >>> >>>>>>> to understand changes before they get applied and keep up
> >>> the pace,
> >>> >>>>>>> but...
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least
> >>> discussed
> >>> >>>>>>> here
> >>> >>>>>>> openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our
> >>> >>>>>>> cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if
> >>> *you* step
> >>> >>>>>>> out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many
> >>> could
> >>> >>>>>>> have come up with after having read it.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of
> >>> >>>>>> the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat
> >>> >>>>>> on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the
> >>> >>>>>> board before making any decisions...
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
Apache Maven - http://maven.apache.org
"Better Builds with Maven" book - http://library.mergere.com/
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
John Sisson wrote:
> I agree that "merging" shouldn't require another RTC. So merging of
> your m2 migration changes should be OK.
It's not necessarily as clear-cut as that. Any change
that's going into something provided as part of an
Apache release needs to go through the approval model.
Hack away in the sandboxes freely, but rolling anything
from a sandbox into a intend-to-ship line needs to go
through the model -- RTC, in this case.
Merging in changes from another branch can be a bit grey,
as well. Why weren't they in the target branch? Did they
have anything to do with why the source branch was
abandoned (in this case)? (Those are rhetorical questions.)
It's a judgement call on the part of the committers.
Since RTC is intended to emphasise quality over development
speed and convenience, the question that needs to be
asked and answered is along the lines of, 'Is this a
functional change, and is there *any* danger of it
introducing bugs that would be caught by reviewing it
first?'
Committers have to be honest with themselves and the
project, and answer the question objectively rather
than taking an easy way out. 'Fifty-plus files is
'way too much to review, so let's just assume that
since it was in the other branch it's okey to bring
in here without checking' is a *wrong* answer.
'There are fifty-plus files involved, but the changes
were all exercised and tested in the source branch, and
they're being merged into code in the destination branch
that is the same as in the source branch, so I feel
confident merging it won't tickle any bugs from the
integration, and I don't think we need to review' is a
valid answer allowing unreviewed merging.
Cases like this are up to the committers to decide.
Based on that definition, if no-one honestly thinks the
merge could introduce bugs, then commit away. Remember,
though, that even in CTR someone can discover an
unanticipated problem and issue a veto..
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRJCKY5rNPMCpn3XdAQIjMQP5AQzBDPdmxbcCnBKsLUh4QImCEz+j6SMa
rF/88U3pCQr+3dS/gg7GUICHtmvwDPcNpBmxDiAKXu4rUyjGE15/Lf8ndb9yCZdv
AHf7eHO0DVdWm7je3H5PNITm5F/+rqM1RDqIfF+MMuYL7UWCLE6urOHLnhqmGpTb
RK315n/LFPo=
=hBnq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.
I agree that "merging" shouldn't require another RTC. So merging of
your m2 migration changes should be OK.
We need to discuss the situation where merging a change from a branch to
trunk isn't a just a simple merge. For example, manual changes needed
to be made, e.g. changes to logic because the trunk has moved in a
different direction to the branch you are merging from. IMHO, in this
scenario, it would be worth discussing the changes on the dev list
before proceeding with the merge. Comments on this scenario?
John
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Prasad,
>
> I saw Anita's changes and started reviewing them. Unfortunately, they
> required more time than I had at the moment and I won't get back to
> them until this weekend I suspect.
>
> I think that since this is a merge of existing work should not
> necessarily require review since it was existing and we've made the
> decision to have it merged forward. The ROUS will probably need to
> comment here. So long as Jaceck is overseeing the work that was
> previously committed I'm ok with not requiring RTC for this.
>
> Matt
>
> Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>> Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She
>> had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy.
>>
>> A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed into
>> the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the
>> new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should they
>> now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Prasad
>>
>> On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <bw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming
>>> in the next 24 hrs.
>>>
>>> John Sisson wrote:
>>> > Jeff Genender wrote:
>>> >> Matt,
>>> >>
>>> >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me
>>> as one
>>> >> of the 3)...
>>> >>
>>> >> We have some nice patches coming up...
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > In the interests of being open and improving communications in the
>>> > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work
>>> > you are planning to do.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > John
>>> >> Dunno if that helps :/
>>> >>
>>> >> Jeff
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and
>>> >>> working
>>> >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting
>>> >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction.
>>> Since its
>>> >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the
>>> server and
>>> >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however
>>> interest
>>> >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more
>>> >>>> people
>>> >>>> involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on
>>> this
>>> >>>> stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes."
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of
>>> >>>> developers, and
>>> >>>> especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if
>>> >>>> you can
>>> >>>> get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of
>>> >>>> Geronimo's issues at the same time.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there
>>> are
>>> >>>> many
>>> >>>> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from
>>> >>>> eyeballing
>>> >>>> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't
>>> >>>> always need
>>> >>>> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be
>>> important to
>>> >>>> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the
>>> >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really
>>> like the
>>> >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be
>>> fixed) I
>>> >>> was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was
>>> >>> going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats
>>> fien. Right
>>> >>> now its changing colors and packaging.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running
>>> Eclipse
>>> >>> and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be
>>> >>> difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get
>>> >>> slowed
>>> >>> down.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Cheers,
>>> >>>> -g
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Ken, et al,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding
>>> exceptions to
>>> >>>>> the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special
>>> >>>>> consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev
>>> trees
>>> >>>>> are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have
>>> a very
>>> >>>>> limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think
>>> it is
>>> >>>>> Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on
>>> the
>>> >>>>> requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't
>>> think we
>>> >>>>> have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to
>>> Review
>>> >>>>> and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Matt
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting
>>> >>>>>>>> made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model
>>> >>>>>>>> for the time being.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Effective immediately, the development model for Apache
>>> >>>>>>>> Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to
>>> >>>>>>>> Review-Then-Commit.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our
>>> >>>>>>> community
>>> >>>>>>> to understand changes before they get applied and keep up
>>> the pace,
>>> >>>>>>> but...
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least
>>> discussed
>>> >>>>>>> here
>>> >>>>>>> openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our
>>> >>>>>>> cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if
>>> *you* step
>>> >>>>>>> out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many
>>> could
>>> >>>>>>> have come up with after having read it.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of
>>> >>>>>> the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat
>>> >>>>>> on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the
>>> >>>>>> board before making any decisions...
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Prasad,
I saw Anita's changes and started reviewing them. Unfortunately, they required more time than I had
at the moment and I won't get back to them until this weekend I suspect.
I think that since this is a merge of existing work should not necessarily require review since it
was existing and we've made the decision to have it merged forward. The ROUS will probably need to
comment here. So long as Jaceck is overseeing the work that was previously committed I'm ok with
not requiring RTC for this.
Matt
Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She
> had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy.
>
> A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed into
> the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the
> new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should they
> now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ?
>
> Cheers
> Prasad
>
> On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <bw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming
>> in the next 24 hrs.
>>
>> John Sisson wrote:
>> > Jeff Genender wrote:
>> >> Matt,
>> >>
>> >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one
>> >> of the 3)...
>> >>
>> >> We have some nice patches coming up...
>> >>
>> >>
>> > In the interests of being open and improving communications in the
>> > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work
>> > you are planning to do.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > John
>> >> Dunno if that helps :/
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and
>> >>> working
>> >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting
>> >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction.
>> Since its
>> >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and
>> >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however
>> interest
>> >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue.
>> >>>
>> >>> Greg Stein wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more
>> >>>> people
>> >>>> involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this
>> >>>> stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of
>> >>>> developers, and
>> >>>> especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if
>> >>>> you can
>> >>>> get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of
>> >>>> Geronimo's issues at the same time.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are
>> >>>> many
>> >>>> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from
>> >>>> eyeballing
>> >>>> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't
>> >>>> always need
>> >>>> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be
>> important to
>> >>>> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-)
>> >>>>
>> >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the
>> >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like the
>> >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be
>> fixed) I
>> >>> was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was
>> >>> going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats fien.
>> Right
>> >>> now its changing colors and packaging.
>> >>>
>> >>> IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running Eclipse
>> >>> and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be
>> >>> difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get
>> >>> slowed
>> >>> down.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Cheers,
>> >>>> -g
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Ken, et al,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to
>> >>>>> the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special
>> >>>>> consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees
>> >>>>> are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a
>> very
>> >>>>> limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is
>> >>>>> Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the
>> >>>>> requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't
>> think we
>> >>>>> have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review
>> >>>>> and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Matt
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting
>> >>>>>>>> made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model
>> >>>>>>>> for the time being.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Effective immediately, the development model for Apache
>> >>>>>>>> Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to
>> >>>>>>>> Review-Then-Commit.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our
>> >>>>>>> community
>> >>>>>>> to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the
>> pace,
>> >>>>>>> but...
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed
>> >>>>>>> here
>> >>>>>>> openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our
>> >>>>>>> cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you*
>> step
>> >>>>>>> out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many
>> could
>> >>>>>>> have come up with after having read it.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of
>> >>>>>> the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat
>> >>>>>> on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the
>> >>>>>> board before making any decisions...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
Jason,
Thanks. I did start from the old trunk and moved everything to 1.1.
The changes made to the existing code (from old trunk) are documented
here
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-851#action_12413522
The old and new code does not affect M1 build. There is a separate
patch (1 line !) called deploy-tool.patch to switch between M1 and M2
builds.
Thanks
Anita
--- Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> I say we just commit the lot of them. Should have no affect on the m1
> build, so risk is low.
>
> Let's just get the bits from the dead branch onto trunk and then go
> from there.
>
> --jason
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Prasad Kashyap" <go...@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:47:48
> To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
>
> Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She
> had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy.
>
> A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed
> into
> the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the
> new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should
> they
> now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ?
>
> Cheers
> Prasad
>
> On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <bw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's
> coming
> > in the next 24 hrs.
> >
> > John Sisson wrote:
> > > Jeff Genender wrote:
> > >> Matt,
> > >>
> > >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me
> as one
> > >> of the 3)...
> > >>
> > >> We have some nice patches coming up...
> > >>
> > >>
> > > In the interests of being open and improving communications in
> the
> > > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the
> work
> > > you are planning to do.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > John
> > >> Dunno if that helps :/
> > >>
> > >> Jeff
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking
> and
> > >>> working
> > >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been
> getting
> > >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction.
> Since its
> > >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the
> server and
> > >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however
> interest
> > >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue.
> > >>>
> > >>> Greg Stein wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be
> more
> > >>>> people
> > >>>> involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working
> on this
> > >>>> stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of
> > >>>> developers, and
> > >>>> especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem
> if
> > >>>> you can
> > >>>> get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve
> many of
> > >>>> Geronimo's issues at the same time.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ...
> there are
> > >>>> many
> > >>>> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from
> > >>>> eyeballing
> > >>>> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't
> > >>>> always need
> > >>>> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be
> important to
> > >>>> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-)
> > >>>>
> > >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since
> the
> > >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really
> like the
> > >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be
> fixed) I
> > >>> was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate
> was
> > >>> going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats
> fien. Right
> > >>> now its changing colors and packaging.
> > >>>
> > >>> IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running
> Eclipse
> > >>> and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be
> > >>> difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin
> get
> > >>> slowed
> > >>> down.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Cheers,
> > >>>> -g
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Ken, et al,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding
> exceptions to
> > >>>>> the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special
> > >>>>> consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev
> trees
> > >>>>> are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such
> have a very
> > >>>>> limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think
> it is
> > >>>>> Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based
> on the
> > >>>>> requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't
> think we
> > >>>>> have enough active commiters in these branches to make this
> work.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to
> Review
> > >>>>> and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Matt
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting
> > >>>>>>>> made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model
> > >>>>>>>> for the time being.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Effective immediately, the development model for Apache
> > >>>>>>>> Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to
> > >>>>>>>> Review-Then-Commit.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help
> our
> > >>>>>>> community
> > >>>>>>> to understand changes before they get applied and keep up
> the pace,
> > >>>>>>> but...
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least
> discussed
> > >>>>>>> here
> > >>>>>>> openly, with the community to find out how they feel about
> our
> > >>>>>>> cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if
> *you* step
> > >>>>>>> out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought
> many could
> > >>>>>>> have come up with after having read it.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full
> support of
> > >>>>>> the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat
> > >>>>>> on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the
> > >>>>>> board before making any decisions...
> > >>>>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I say we just commit the lot of them. Should have no affect on the m1 build, so risk is low.
Let's just get the bits from the dead branch onto trunk and then go from there.
--jason
-----Original Message-----
From: "Prasad Kashyap" <go...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:47:48
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She
had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy.
A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed into
the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the
new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should they
now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ?
Cheers
Prasad
On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <bw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming
> in the next 24 hrs.
>
> John Sisson wrote:
> > Jeff Genender wrote:
> >> Matt,
> >>
> >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one
> >> of the 3)...
> >>
> >> We have some nice patches coming up...
> >>
> >>
> > In the interests of being open and improving communications in the
> > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work
> > you are planning to do.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
> >> Dunno if that helps :/
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >>
> >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and
> >>> working
> >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting
> >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. Since its
> >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and
> >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however interest
> >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue.
> >>>
> >>> Greg Stein wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more
> >>>> people
> >>>> involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this
> >>>> stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes."
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of
> >>>> developers, and
> >>>> especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if
> >>>> you can
> >>>> get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of
> >>>> Geronimo's issues at the same time.
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are
> >>>> many
> >>>> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from
> >>>> eyeballing
> >>>> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't
> >>>> always need
> >>>> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to
> >>>> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-)
> >>>>
> >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the
> >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like the
> >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be fixed) I
> >>> was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was
> >>> going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats fien. Right
> >>> now its changing colors and packaging.
> >>>
> >>> IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running Eclipse
> >>> and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be
> >>> difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get
> >>> slowed
> >>> down.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -g
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Ken, et al,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to
> >>>>> the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special
> >>>>> consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees
> >>>>> are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very
> >>>>> limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is
> >>>>> Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the
> >>>>> requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we
> >>>>> have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review
> >>>>> and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Matt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting
> >>>>>>>> made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model
> >>>>>>>> for the time being.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Effective immediately, the development model for Apache
> >>>>>>>> Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to
> >>>>>>>> Review-Then-Commit.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our
> >>>>>>> community
> >>>>>>> to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace,
> >>>>>>> but...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed
> >>>>>>> here
> >>>>>>> openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our
> >>>>>>> cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step
> >>>>>>> out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could
> >>>>>>> have come up with after having read it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of
> >>>>>> the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat
> >>>>>> on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the
> >>>>>> board before making any decisions...
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>