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 :-) 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... -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
