Hi Kevin, On Feb 13, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Kevin Sutter (JIRA) wrote:
Kevin Sutter commented on OPENJPA-141: --------------------------------------Personally, I think I provide sufficient due diligence on the Issues that I own to stick with the normal "commit then review" approach. There are many, many changes that get incorporated into OpenJPA without even a JIRA Issue discussion. So, until I totally screw up,
I don't expect that any committer is going to "totally screw up", and I hope you don't take my comments as accusing you of such. But this issue seems to be full of interesting nuances that might better be discussed before the fact.
This issue is already the result of a commit with serious issues raised against it after the fact. So I'm a bit perplexed at the emotional reaction to my request to separate this steer from the herd.
I'm going along with Patrick's comment and will do my normal commit with the JIRA Issue in the comment field.
Certainly this is your choice.Just one final comment. The Apache Way calls for thorough and public discussion on contentious issues, and this is complicated substantially by having the appearance of "shadow implementers", as reflected in your comments in the original JIRA: "I will be working with Abe and my performance team to work through these issues".
Craig
More performance improvements (in response to changes for OPENJPA-138) --------------------------------------------------------------------- -Key: OPENJPA-141URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ OPENJPA-141
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
