>-----Original Message----- >From: Henry Saputra [mailto:henry.sapu...@gmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:15 PM >To: dev@shindig.apache.org >Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR was ( Review Request: Allow container >implementations to more easily override and extend rpc registered service >handlers. ) > >I am thinking about having Apache Shindig bylaws similar to what >Apache Hadoop has: http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html which govern >how code commits should be conducted.
+1, though I would use a different community's bylaws as an example [1]. Their definition of Lazy consensus is a little off to me. Ross Gardler wrote Rave's and it covers the concept well[2]. [1] http://hc.apache.org/bylaws.html (note the section on #Code_Review) [2] http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html > >I'd like the simplicity of CTR but it needs to have good boundaries. I >really dont want us to come back to the old model where commits and >reviews just done with some people working in the same companies. >Reviews could be done early with some people but at the end should >targeted to dev list for final approval. > >- Henry > >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/javascri >pt/ >>>features/container/container.js 1365569 >>> >>>http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascri >pt/ >>>features/rpc/rpc.js 1365569 >>> >>>Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/6141/diff/ >>> >>> >>>Testing >>>------- >>> >>>Tests pass. >>> >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>Dan Dumont >>
