Yeah we could do that but wouldnt that commit the changes to the site source repo?
- Henry On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Ryan Baxter <rbaxte...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >> >>> >> >> >>
