I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming in the next 24 hrs.
John Sisson wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote:
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...

In the interests of being open and improving communications in the Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work you are planning to do.

Thanks,

John
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...



Reply via email to