Most communities I have seen eventually adopt a Commit Then Review model over a Review Then Commit model. Due to the complexity of Shindig, I can understand wanting to make sure that bigger changes are reviewed; however, for trivial changes such as this, would it be easier to just commit the change?
I am not a committer, so it is really up to you all. IMO, it is a lot of overhead to review everything :) . If you do move to a CTR model, I would suggest setting some boundaries so that you work into the model. Maybe saying that any change with x lines, etc. >-----Original Message----- >From: Dan Dumont [mailto:nore...@reviews.apache.org] On Behalf Of Dan >Dumont >Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:28 PM >To: shindig; Dan Dumont >Subject: Review Request: Allow container implementations to more easily >override and extend rpc registered service handlers. > > >----------------------------------------------------------- >This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >https://reviews.apache.org/r/6141/ >----------------------------------------------------------- > >Review request for shindig. > > >Description >------- > >Change rpc registration to return the old handler if there were any so that >container implementations may call into the previously registered handler if >they wish to extend the existing behavior. > > >This addresses bug SHINDIG-1827. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1827 > > >Diffs >----- > > >http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/ >features/container/container.js 1365569 > >http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/ >features/rpc/rpc.js 1365569 > >Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/6141/diff/ > > >Testing >------- > >Tests pass. > > >Thanks, > >Dan Dumont
