Gianny Damour wrote:
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
Let's take this as an example. As we haven't discussed it yet, it
seems to me that such a change requires 3x+1 from PMC members. So,
only when this vote (it should possib
Ok, I understand the issue. To be honest I took a look at Hiram's RTC request. The time to take
and apply the patches and test them was a bit onerous given the other things I was working on.
I think Ken's switch from CTR to RTC was to promote communication as well as improve knowledge (I
real
ROFLMAO :)
See my comments on chimerical (excellent...excellent)
Agree with your other statements.
Hiram Chirino wrote:
On 6/19/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure Ken's intent was to introduce a new concept as much as he
was pointing out a side
benefit. My understandin
On 6/19/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 19, 2006, at 4:28 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Clearly the opinion of some on the thread is they trust each other
> and communication has already been fine so this is just slowing
> them down? Is that the summary? I'd have to disagree
On 6/19/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure Ken's intent was to introduce a new concept as much as he was
pointing out a side
benefit. My understanding was that RTC was enforce to improve community
collaboration and
communication. Clearly its not working very well based
On Jun 19, 2006, at 4:28 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Clearly the opinion of some on the thread is they trust each other
and communication has already been fine so this is just slowing
them down? Is that the summary? I'd have to disagree that things
have been fine although I'll concede that p
On Jun 19, 2006, at 4:28 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I'm not sure Ken's intent was to introduce a new concept as much as
he was pointing out a side benefit. My understanding was that RTC
was enforce to improve community collaboration and communication.
Clearly its not working very well based
I'm not sure Ken's intent was to introduce a new concept as much as he was pointing out a side
benefit. My understanding was that RTC was enforce to improve community collaboration and
communication. Clearly its not working very well based on the comments in this thread. Seems to be
going the
On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't consider this valid, either. If you have the
time to be a committer, you have the time to be part of
the community and collaborate with your peers on the
project. One thing abou
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
Let's take this as an example. As we haven't discussed it yet, it
seems to me that such a change requires 3x+1 from PMC members. So,
only when this vote (it should possibly be a separate vote
On Jun 17, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevan Miller wrote:
In Ken's announcement of the change to the commit model, he stated
that a +1 to an RTC request means "I have applied this patch and
tested it and found it good". Alth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>
> Let's take this as an example. As we haven't discussed it yet, it
> seems to me that such a change requires 3x+1 from PMC members. So,
> only when this vote (it should possibly be a separate vote with
> 72-hour vote period t
On Jun 17, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Blevins wrote:
Is there a code quality issue in this community?
Not necessarily. There *does* appear to be an issue
with some people not wanting to abide by the requirements
of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Blevins wrote:
> Is there a code quality issue in this community?
Not necessarily. There *does* appear to be an issue
with some people not wanting to abide by the requirements
of the RTC model.
- --
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweini
--- Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size
> wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >> On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> If that means things langu
Is there a code quality issue in this community?
-David
On Jun 17, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If that means things languish for weeks or mont
Hi Guys and Gals,
I just wanted to chime into this thread since the discussion is quite
lively right now. Obviously not being a commiter on the project directly
I don't really have a leg to stand on from a developer perspective, but
I do come from a user perspective having worked through vario
On Jun 17, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If that means things languish for weeks or months, then
that's what it means.
I don't think this is a g
On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are you so hung up on this?
Because you did it under CTR and claimed that RTC wouldn't
have made any difference.
What are you talking about? When did I claim anything about what RTC
would or wouldn't have changed?
CTR also
On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RTC means tested quality, not assumed quality. If you
can't find people to test the quality of something, it
doesn't go in because the quality isn't assured.
I'm not sure where 'quality' requirement is coming from. I don't
think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> RTC means that you can't unilaterally and arbitrarily do things
>> *without* discussion. Like, say, setting up a
>> non-project-sponsored .com site and pointing pr
On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RTC means that you can't unilaterally and arbitrarily do
things *without* discussion. Like, say, setting up a
non-project-sponsored .com site and pointing project code at
it without discussion.
Why are you so hung up on this? The c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
One way to compare CTR and RTC to each other:
o With CTR, the focus is on getting things done.
o With RTC, the focus is on getting things done *well*
and doing it together.
- --
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If that means things languish for weeks or months, then
>> that's what it means.
>
> I don't think this is a good idea.
RTC means tested quality, not assumed quali
On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If that means things languish for weeks or months, then
that's what it means.
I don't think this is a good idea.
The RTC process (as Ken is describing it) has a number of side effects:
- Eliminates trust. I know say, David J has a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> In Ken's announcement of the change to the commit model, he stated
> that a +1 to an RTC request means "I have applied this patch and
> tested it and found it good". Although a relaxation of this
> interpretation has been
+1
See inline ..
Kevan Miller wrote:
I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by Geronimo
(or at least I'm requesting a relaxation of Ken's interpretation of
the RTC process).
In Ken's announcement of the change to the commit model, he stated
that a +1 to an RTC request me
+1 to the suggested meaning of +1 votes
+1 to the suggestion of *all* committers voting
regards
Jan
Kevan Miller wrote:
I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by Geronimo
(or at least I'm requesting a relaxation of Ken's interpretation of the
RTC process).
In Ken's ann
On 6/4/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In addition I think we should go against the PMC-only rule from the voting
document and allow +1 and -1 from non-pmc committers to count.
+1
Let's take this as an example. As we haven't discussed it yet, it
seems to me that such a change requ
On Jun 3, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
On Jun 3, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
However, it's unlikely that current Geronimo committers want to be
intimately familiar with some of these Geronimo components --
we've all had our chance to get involved, so far, but have chos
On Jun 3, 2006, at 5:14 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by Geronimo (or at least I'm requesting a relaxation of Ken's interpretation of the RTC process).In Ken's announcement of the change to the commit model, he stated that a +1 to an RTC request m
+1
On 6/3/06, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by
Geronimo (or at least I'm requesting a relaxation of Ken's
interpretation of the RTC process).
In Ken's announcement of the change to the commit model, he stated
that a +1 to an R
On 6/3/06, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"I have reviewed (and possibly tested) this patch and found it good.
I understand the capability which the patch is adding and support the
direction in which it is taking the Geronimo project"
+1
Very well said. The truth as I understand it i
On Jun 3, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
However, it's unlikely that current Geronimo committers want to be
intimately familiar with some of these Geronimo components -- we've
all had our chance to get involved, so far, but have chosen not to.
Its very unfortunate that everyone is t
Kevan,
I totally agree with you. I think "eyeballing" a patch is more than
good enough to wage a +1. I surely do not have the time to apply and
test every patch.
Thanks,
Jeff
Kevan Miller wrote:
> I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by Geronimo
> (or at least I'm reque
+1
Cheers
Anita
--- Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by
> Geronimo (or at least I'm requesting a relaxation of Ken's
> interpretation of the RTC process).
>
> In Ken's announcement of the change to the commit model, he state
+1
On Jun 3, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by
Geronimo (or at least I'm requesting a relaxation of Ken's
interpretation of the RTC process).
In Ken's announcement of the change to the commit model, he stated
that a +1 to
I'd like to request a change to the RTC process being used by
Geronimo (or at least I'm requesting a relaxation of Ken's
interpretation of the RTC process).
In Ken's announcement of the change to the commit model, he stated
that a +1 to an RTC request means "I have applied this patch and
38 matches
Mail list logo
