Henry would you want to take a stab at drafting up Shindig's? :) On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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 > >>> >
