On Jun 17, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Kevan Miller wrote:
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.
Correct.
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.
Noted.
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.
IMHO, the problem lies with Geronimo, not with the interpretation.
(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"
No, that is inadequate. RTC is not something to 'get around;'
it's a fundamental way of progressing. If something fails to
garner three +1 votes, it means that there aren't three people
who care enough about it for it to go into the code. It's up
to the person/people behind the item to drum up support for
it. It doesn't go in until three people have verified that
it works acceptably.
If that means things languish for weeks or months, then
that's what it means.
Ken, I don't understand. How does my proposal 'get around' RTC? I
haven't changed the requirement for three +1 votes. I'm trying to
clarify what a +1 vote means. I think my interpretation is doing more
to encourage communication within the community. I'd like to see some
additional documentation requirements and guidelines be added to the
RTC process to further encourage community communication. I assume
that these changes would be determined by community vote? Or are all
aspects of RTC under your jurisdiction?
BTW, I'm not the only one who disagrees with your 'patched and
tested' interpretation. On May 24, 2006 3:53:23 PM EDT, Greg Stein
commented in the original "Change to commit model for Apache
Geronimo" thread:
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 :-)
--kevan
