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... 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 <[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... >>
