> I think the problem is that although we operate in a "commit then review" fashion
Except for one thing: the code isn't committed! It WAS posted for review. The message from Peter included the proposed code, a description of what and why, and then concluded with: "I've done basic testing on this code, and I am now doing further load testing. I will continue to do testing BEFORE SUBMISSION [emphasis mine]. [clip] As always, comments, critiques, and questions are welcome." As I recall, the changes were made from open discussion over the summer, and based upon input from several folks, although I guess no one formally called a vote. > there should be open discussion of intention and reasoning for significant re-factorings. I agree. Seems to me that that's exactly what is (and should be) happening. At least that's how I interpret his action to post the code for comments, critiques and criticisms before he commits it. That is the point of Harmeet's that confuses me. I'm confused about the issues of why wasn't this discussed before, and why wasn't it discussed before committing, because it seems to me that neither of those is correct. The code WAS posted for discussion, and before that, I recall discussions of watchdog timers and service re-factoring. Andrei submitted the original cut of service changes months ago. Perhaps it would have been good if Peter had kept more of a running dialog going over the intervening period, but I didn't perceive any of the changes to have come out of a vacuum. > http://jakarta.apache.org/site/source.html Thanks for that, and the rest of the elaboration. How do we address the "Status Files"? > I think Harmeet is implying, and I would agree with, > is that it shouldn't be beyond the bounds of realism > to expect a reasoned discussion of the issues *in > advance* to prevent us from ever getting into the > position where a change, once commited, is vetoed. I agree, but I fail to see the problem. In the case of the watchdog and service changes, (a) I believe that there has been prior discussion, (b) I believe that after the code was changed based upon prior discussion, it was specifically posted for the purpose of inviting further discussion, and (c) it hasn't committed before discussion. --- Noel -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
