So, I think I did the first commit based on this policy, for
GERONIMO-2006, what I think is a completely uncontroversial patch,
and want to check out the timing factor. The time from my proposal
to patch to the third unequivocal +1 was 1hr 34 minutes. (I couldn't
tell if jsisson's +1 was for the bug fix part only or the whole
patch, so I decided to be unreasonably pedantic and not count it:
counting it the time was 56 minutes).
This might be fine for simple uncontroversial patches such as this
one, but there's a danger that this won't allow much time for review,
especially for complicated changes such as occurred during the
configid/1.1 development. Is there an apache standard minimum wait
time or is this something we have to decide for ourselves? I think
it will be hard to balance proceeding with further work with giving
adequate review time.
Personally I'm ok with committing immediately after 3 +1 votes and
rolling back if there is a later -1. I'm still mystified by the
claims of intimidation and back-room deals so obviously I may not be
a good judge of what is appropriate here. I do think that a waiting
period longer than 24 hours is likely to encourage gigantic full-
feature patches that are extremely hard to review rather than little
bits of incremental progress that can easily be comprehended at
once. We might be able to use svk to reduce this problem, but that
has its own problems (no idea plugin).
I'm going to be travelling and offline most of the time until next
tuesday so will most likely have to pick up the discussion at that
point.
thanks
david jencks
On May 21, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
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.
This means that all code changes that aren't for
documentation or a specific bug fix need to be
submitted as patches to the [email protected]
list before getting committed. They can get applied
after three other committers have voted +1 -- which
in this mode means 'I have applied this patch and
tested it and found it good' -- and no committers
have vetoed it.
I'm doing this to put to rest widespread concerns
that development in Geronimo *isn't* being done
entirely in the open. It's a drastic step, but
those concerns have been around for a while and
just don't seem to be going away.
This also means that everyone needs to take interest
in the changes being proposed for the code. Everyone
knowing more about what everyone else is doing isn't
a bad thing, and cooperating more to get them made
isn't a bad thing either.
- --
#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
iQCVAwUBRHD+TZrNPMCpn3XdAQJ9FwQAlwe2L+SvgffPyPSvXi0GjefJBSN/DZtQ
CPE/OPkJrC8QxKegPsu4wRmYJK0HkilWkojglPYSZkKEP94fOIEA+R3Nh+IByo+D
q8LF12qpkvxI9RjsEMEqa3+awNt7uag0GT0WgMDEX3VMupPRq3X52V7XiSzATqmp
rwb0h13AQlc=
=LjSH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
