Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
snip
Lots of process...
/snip
* If a PMC member is the person who completes the vote (
three binding +1s and no
on the dev list archives. The way we document changes
may be subject to change (e.g. detailed documentation placed in a
linked JIRA) based upon the outcome of the discussions in the thread
[DISCUSS] Tracking documentation tasks in JIRA ( was Re: [RTC]
Clarification please from the PMC )
2.3 Each
On 7/2/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please read Ken's original email:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
As far as not considering commiters votes binding, this has never been
the way Geronimo was run. If things have changed
This looks very reasonable.
--jason
I'm a Jira admin so I have dug up the work flow that we're
currently using. Here's what I think we're proposing.
Regards,
Alan
Jira-State.gnp
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
One of the issues I see with the current process we have for
changes under RTC is that it is hard to keep track of what patches
are pending RTC.
Ken suggested that we reintroduce the STATUS file as a way
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 7/2/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please read Ken's original email:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As far as not considering commiters votes binding, this has never been
the way Geronimo was run.
If the policy is that only PMC votes count for *everything*, then I
think we should abolish the position of committer. Having a status of
allowed to commit bug fixes only does not make sense to me.
If we intend to return to CTR at some point, then committer probably
makes sense, but I think we
Ahh, a little bell went off in my head. When we were in CTR mode we
never really had code related votes, per se. That's why I don't recall
the committer/PMC duality w/ respect to code changes. I now realize how
RTC brings out this distinction.
Regards,
Alan
Aaron Mulder wrote:
If the
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
snip
Lots of process...
/snip
* If a PMC member is the person who completes the vote (
three binding +1s and no vetos) for the latest version of the
patch then they should change
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
snip
Lots of process...
/snip
* If a PMC member is the person who completes the vote (
three binding +1s and no vetos) for the latest version of the
patch
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
John Sisson wrote:
snip
Lots of process...
/snip
* If a PMC member is the person who completes the vote (
three binding +1s and no vetos) for the latest
SVN changes that are associated with a JIRA should include the JIRA
id (exact case) so that JIRA can link back to the changes.
--jason
On Jun 30, 2006, at 6:56 PM, John Sisson wrote:
In the Re: [RTC] Clarification please from the PMC thread I
raised some issues regarding documenting
John Sisson wrote:
* The code in svn should always build. During the development of 1.0
and 1.1 there were long periods of time where builds were broken due
to people committing code without doing a build to test it. In some
cases the developer may have done a build and it was successful,
There was/is some bits on gbuild that is using Continuum... but I'm
unsure at this time how trustworthy the setup is (ie. can we trust
that a failure notice is really something broke or just something
transient).
Once the m2 build is square we should get a concrete CI setup to help
avoid
on the dev list archives. The way we document changes
may be subject to change (e.g. detailed documentation placed in a
linked JIRA) based upon the outcome of the discussions in the thread
[DISCUSS] Tracking documentation tasks in JIRA ( was Re: [RTC]
Clarification please from the PMC )
2.3
GERONIMO-1234-FixNPE-v1
GERONIMO-1234-FixNPE-v2 (second attempt at patch)
GERONIMO-3421-v1
Why should a patch that has been attached to a specific Jira issue
include the number of the jira issue? I don't mind but it seems
odd and usually that means that I am misunderstanding
Jason Dillon wrote:
2. Not all communication regarding the fix is done in JIRA comments,
therefore people reviewing the fix have to search the mailing lists
and JIRA reducing the amount of time they have to actually review the
change. This also makes it harder for people in the future who
[DISCUSS] Tracking
documentation tasks in JIRA ( was Re: [RTC] Clarification please from
the PMC )
2.3 Each PMC member who reviews the patch attached to the JIRA must
do the following:
* Add a JIRA comment containing the file name of the patch they
reviewed. This is so
documentation placed in a
linked JIRA) based upon the outcome of the discussions in the thread
[DISCUSS] Tracking documentation tasks in JIRA ( was Re: [RTC]
Clarification please from the PMC )
2.3 Each PMC member who reviews the patch attached to the JIRA must
do the following:
* Add
Jason Dillon wrote:
I second your opinions, but that's how we operate and I can't do much
regarding this matter other than to spare some time and vote at least.
I think I'm not alone thinking that RTC is very painful, but some see
it as a remedy of our troublesome happenings in the past. We'll
This reflects my sentiments as well.
Regards,
Alan
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Jason Dillon wrote:
I second your opinions, but that's how we operate and I can't do much
regarding this matter other than to spare some time and vote at least.
I think I'm not alone thinking that RTC is very painful,
Guys, I feel like I am allowed to state my opinions.
I am not complaining (and a bit insulted that you think I am), but I
believe that RTC is harmful for a few reasons.
I also feel like some responses to mails I have sent are basically
that I should shut-up (my words), which I do not
Jason Dillon wrote:
Guys, I feel like I am allowed to state my opinions.
I am not complaining (and a bit insulted that you think I am), but I
believe that RTC is harmful for a few reasons.
I also feel like some responses to mails I have sent are basically that
I should shut-up (my
changes may
be subject to change (e.g. detailed documentation placed in a linked
JIRA) based upon the outcome of the discussions in the thread [DISCUSS]
Tracking documentation tasks in JIRA ( was Re: [RTC] Clarification
please from the PMC )
2.3 Each PMC member who reviews the patch attached
There is a lot of work going on to migrate from Maven 1 to Maven 2 in our build. A question came up
as to whether or not we needed [RTC] for that activity. Please read an excerpt from David's e-mail
on the topic...
David Jencks wrote:
AFAIK no one is planning to try to get 1.1 to build with
On 6/29/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a lot of work going on to migrate from Maven 1 to Maven 2 in our
build. A question came up
as to whether or not we needed [RTC] for that activity. Please read an excerpt
from David's e-mail
on the topic...
David Jencks wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
AFAIK no one is planning to try to get 1.1 to build with m2. I
certainly don't feel like I have time to deal with the RTC process
for something that requires zillions of trivial changes to get to
work.
I think we should target the conversion for trunk, and after that
On 6/29/06, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NOTE: My comments below are not directed towards anyone in
particular... mostly this just expresses my frustration with some of
the more harmful politics that Apache Geronimo has picked up over the
past few months...
I second your opinions, but
I'd like to +1 this, but I'm too scared to due to the political ramifications.
Yesterday, a PMC member told me that the only thing he could compare
Gernimo to was Avalon, where certain personalities were so destructive
that someone was kicked out of Apache altogether.
You do the math.
Thanks,
Its a sad time when members of the community are scared to state
their minds in fear of reprisal.
* * *
I was never very good at math... that is what calculators are for. :-P
--jason
On Jun 29, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
I'd like to +1 this, but I'm too scared to due to the
Jason Dillon wrote:
Its a sad time when members of the community are scared to state their
minds in fear of reprisal.
Interesting comment, isn't this what started all of this to begin with?
* * *
I was never very good at math... that is what calculators are for. :-P
--jason
On
Its a sad time when members of the community are scared to state
their
minds in fear of reprisal.
Interesting comment, isn't this what started all of this to begin
with?
I can't say... not really understanding all of the issues that led us
to this situation. I know of an event at
Jason Dillon wrote:
Its a sad time when members of the community are scared to state their
minds in fear of reprisal.
Interesting comment, isn't this what started all of this to begin with?
I can't say... not really understanding all of the issues that led us to
this situation. I know
33 matches
Mail list logo
