>-----Original Message----- >From: pmlind...@gmail.com [mailto:pmlind...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of >Paul Lindner >Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:16 PM >To: dev@shindig.apache.org >Cc: Dan Dumont >Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container >implementations to more easily override and extend rpc registered service >handlers. ) > >There's a third way -- lazy consensus. Send the review but commit if no >objections in a certain time period (as short as 24h)
+1 to Lazy consensus in the RTC model The real question I was attempting to put forth is does shindig still need to be a fundamental RTC community? Again, there is nothing wrong with operating in that model so long as all the committers are happy. > >Sending off a quick review shows respect for other team members, and is >also useful if you're wanting feedback. > >And for simple, non controversial stuff we should all feel empowered to >commit first. Don't need to see reviews for comments or line-endings :) So long as the line is defined, then IMHO that makes sense. > >On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. ><mfrank...@mitre.org>wrote: > >> 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 >> >> > > >-- >Paul Lindner -- lind...@inuus.com -- profiles.google.com/pmlindner
