Oh yeah totally not copying from Hadoop bylaws =) What I meant "similar" was to have a written bylaws as guidance for committers and PMCs.
- Henry On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. <mfrank...@mitre.org> wrote: >>-----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 >>>
