Kevan, I totally agree with you. I think "eyeballing" a patch is more than good enough to wage a +1. I surely do not have the time to apply and test every patch.
Thanks, Jeff Kevan Miller wrote: > I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by Geronimo > (or at least I'm requesting a relaxation of Ken's interpretation of the > RTC process). > > In Ken's announcement of the change to the commit model, he stated that > a +1 to an RTC request means "I have applied this patch and tested it > and found it good". Although a relaxation of this interpretation has > been suggested (or mentioned), to my knowledge nothing has actually > changed. > > In some areas of Geronimo (e.g. devtools), this is a cumbersome and > difficult task for most committers. The fact that there are not more > committers interested in these areas of Geronimo is an acknowledged > issue. However, it's unlikely that current Geronimo committers want to > be intimately familiar with some of these Geronimo components -- we've > all had our chance to get involved, so far, but have chosen not to. > > That's a specific problem with the current process. However, I think > there's a general problem with this interpretation for all areas of > Geronimo. IMO, this interpretation is not really helping to address the > fundamental problems/concerns which have prompted the move to RTC. IMO, > these concerns are that 1) some enhancements are not being properly > communicated with the Geronimo community, 2) too many > discussions/debates are occurring on private channels, and 3) some > people are being intimidated to remain silent on some public discussions. > > I'd like to see some specific RTC guidelines created for Geronimo. I'm > sure other projects must have already crafted similar guidelines. So, > I'd like to take a look at those, before spending too much time on > creating guidelines from scratch (I'd also like to shove 1.1. out the > door...) > > In the meantime, I propose the following interpretation of a +1 vote to > an RTC request: > > "I have reviewed (and possibly tested) this patch and found it good. I > understand the capability which the patch is adding and support the > direction in which it is taking the Geronimo project" > > Comments and suggestions are, of course, welcome... > > --kevan > >
