Production isn't even enabled on our site yet anyways, so it will show only on the staging site.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. <mfrank...@mitre.org> wrote: >>-----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 >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>>>
