>-----Original Message----- >From: Henry Saputra [mailto:henry.sapu...@gmail.com] >Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:45 AM >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. ) > >Yeah we could do that but wouldnt that commit the changes to the site >source repo?
Yes, but they aren't pushed to production until the SVN Pub/Sub is kicked. SVN/CMS is probably the best place to do this work IMHO. > >- 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 >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>
