What about using the staging site? :) On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Yes I can. Let me take a stab drafting one in the Shindig wiki so we > could discuss and improve. > > - Henry > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Ryan Baxter <rbaxte...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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 > >> >>> > >> >
