I'd be happy to follow the dev of these 2 trees
On May 24, 2006, at 5:09 PM, 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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...
