CMS peer review process

["David Smiley (@MITRE.org)" <DS...@mitre.org>]

What shall be the procedure of peer review of CMS website changes? Is it
examine patches in JIRA just like source code is, or is it to commit changes
and observe them on the staging server http://lucene.staging.apache.org/ ? 
(or perhaps it depends)

I like these things about the CMS:
* Stuff is staged first, providing an opportunity to revert or modify
something before it's public (published).
* The staging server means people can visually see the effect.  Fairly
important for a CMS.
* Being SVN based, if someone wants to see what I did, they can simply use
conventional SVN tooling.

IMO, because of these benefits, we probably don't need to bother with using
patches and JIRA.

p.s. I already did a quick edit to the website to get my name in the
committer list.  It's staged; I don't have publishing permissions (AFAIK, I
didn't try).

~ David

-----
 Author: http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book
--
View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/CMS-peer-review-process-tp3749488p3749488.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org

Re: CMS peer review process

[Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>]

: What shall be the procedure of peer review of CMS website changes? Is it
: examine patches in JIRA just like source code is, or is it to commit changes
: and observe them on the staging server http://lucene.staging.apache.org/ ? 
: (or perhaps it depends)

"it depends"

the biggest value of hte CMS is making small rapid changes -- just like 
small bug fixes, you shouldn't need peer review to make small tweaks, if 
people don't like it they can revert.

If you are making seriously large substantial changes (ie: "i think we 
should completley re-org the site like this...") then i think patches in 
Jira make sense 

...both of thse situations are just like they use to be in the forrest 
days from a review process.

the new middle ground we have is the "staging site" ... if you have a 
change that you think is simple and not relaly worth a prolonged 
discussion over a patch, but you'd still like to have at least one other 
set of eyeballs on, edit it and push it to staging -- then ask for review 
on email/irc.  worst case scenerio someone else comes along to make a 
minor edit and sees your changes on staging ... which is an automatic 
review if they then choose to "publish" both their changes and yours.


-Hoss

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org