Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Sisson wrote: > I agree that "merging" shouldn't require another RTC. So merging of > your m2 migration changes should be OK. It's not necessarily as clear-cut as that. Any change that's going into something provided as part of an Apache release needs to go through the approval model. Hack away in the sandboxes freely, but rolling anything from a sandbox into a intend-to-ship line needs to go through the model -- RTC, in this case. Merging in changes from another branch can be a bit grey, as well. Why weren't they in the target branch? Did they have anything to do with why the source branch was abandoned (in this case)? (Those are rhetorical questions.) It's a judgement call on the part of the committers. Since RTC is intended to emphasise quality over development speed and convenience, the question that needs to be asked and answered is along the lines of, 'Is this a functional change, and is there *any* danger of it introducing bugs that would be caught by reviewing it first?' Committers have to be honest with themselves and the project, and answer the question objectively rather than taking an easy way out. 'Fifty-plus files is 'way too much to review, so let's just assume that since it was in the other branch it's okey to bring in here without checking' is a *wrong* answer. 'There are fifty-plus files involved, but the changes were all exercised and tested in the source branch, and they're being merged into code in the destination branch that is the same as in the source branch, so I feel confident merging it won't tickle any bugs from the integration, and I don't think we need to review' is a valid answer allowing unreviewed merging. Cases like this are up to the committers to decide. Based on that definition, if no-one honestly thinks the merge could introduce bugs, then commit away. Remember, though, that even in CTR someone can discover an unanticipated problem and issue a veto.. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRJCKY5rNPMCpn3XdAQIjMQP5AQzBDPdmxbcCnBKsLUh4QImCEz+j6SMa rF/88U3pCQr+3dS/gg7GUICHtmvwDPcNpBmxDiAKXu4rUyjGE15/Lf8ndb9yCZdv AHf7eHO0DVdWm7je3H5PNITm5F/+rqM1RDqIfF+MMuYL7UWCLE6urOHLnhqmGpTb RK315n/LFPo= =hBnq -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Haha.. Good point. But shouldn't those 4 people have reviewed the oodles of lines of code in some 50+ files before +1'ing ? Cheers Prasad On 6/1/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Umm, you guys do realise that there are already 4 people besides anita that have said 'I don't think this requires RTC', who could just have easily +1'd the RTC, right? :) Cheers, Brett On 02/06/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree that "merging" shouldn't require another RTC. So merging of > your m2 migration changes should be OK. > > We need to discuss the situation where merging a change from a branch to > trunk isn't a just a simple merge. For example, manual changes needed > to be made, e.g. changes to logic because the trunk has moved in a > different direction to the branch you are merging from. IMHO, in this > scenario, it would be worth discussing the changes on the dev list > before proceeding with the merge. Comments on this scenario? > > John > > Matt Hogstrom wrote: > > Prasad, > > > > I saw Anita's changes and started reviewing them. Unfortunately, they > > required more time than I had at the moment and I won't get back to > > them until this weekend I suspect. > > > > I think that since this is a merge of existing work should not > > necessarily require review since it was existing and we've made the > > decision to have it merged forward. The ROUS will probably need to > > comment here. So long as Jaceck is overseeing the work that was > > previously committed I'm ok with not requiring RTC for this. > > > > Matt > > > > Prasad Kashyap wrote: > >> Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She > >> had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy. > >> > >> A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed into > >> the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the > >> new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should they > >> now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ? > >> > >> Cheers > >> Prasad > >> > >> On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming > >>> in the next 24 hrs. > >>> > >>> John Sisson wrote: > >>> > Jeff Genender wrote: > >>> >> Matt, > >>> >> > >>> >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me > >>> as one > >>> >> of the 3)... > >>> >> > >>> >> We have some nice patches coming up... > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > In the interests of being open and improving communications in the > >>> > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work > >>> > you are planning to do. > >>> > > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > > >>> > John > >>> >> Dunno if that helps :/ > >>> >> > >>> >> Jeff > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and > >>> >>> working > >>> >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting > >>> >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. > >>> Since its > >>> >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the > >>> server and > >>> >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however > >>> interest > >>> >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Greg Stein wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) > >>> > >>> Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more > >>> people > >>> involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on > >>> this > >>> stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes." > >>> > >>> IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of > >>> developers, and > >>> especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if > >>> you can > >>> get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of > >>> Geronimo's issues at the same time. > >>> > >>> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there > >>> are > >>> many > >>> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from > >>> eyeballing > >>> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't > >>> always need > >>> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be > >>> important to > >>> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) > >>> > >>> >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the > >>> >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really > >>> like the > >>> >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be > >>> fixed) I > >>> >>> was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was > >>> >>> going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats > >>> fien. Right > >>> >>> now its changing colors and packaging. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> IMHO DevTools is different in that few comm
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Umm, you guys do realise that there are already 4 people besides anita that have said 'I don't think this requires RTC', who could just have easily +1'd the RTC, right? :) Cheers, Brett On 02/06/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree that "merging" shouldn't require another RTC. So merging of your m2 migration changes should be OK. We need to discuss the situation where merging a change from a branch to trunk isn't a just a simple merge. For example, manual changes needed to be made, e.g. changes to logic because the trunk has moved in a different direction to the branch you are merging from. IMHO, in this scenario, it would be worth discussing the changes on the dev list before proceeding with the merge. Comments on this scenario? John Matt Hogstrom wrote: > Prasad, > > I saw Anita's changes and started reviewing them. Unfortunately, they > required more time than I had at the moment and I won't get back to > them until this weekend I suspect. > > I think that since this is a merge of existing work should not > necessarily require review since it was existing and we've made the > decision to have it merged forward. The ROUS will probably need to > comment here. So long as Jaceck is overseeing the work that was > previously committed I'm ok with not requiring RTC for this. > > Matt > > Prasad Kashyap wrote: >> Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She >> had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy. >> >> A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed into >> the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the >> new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should they >> now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ? >> >> Cheers >> Prasad >> >> On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming >>> in the next 24 hrs. >>> >>> John Sisson wrote: >>> > Jeff Genender wrote: >>> >> Matt, >>> >> >>> >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me >>> as one >>> >> of the 3)... >>> >> >>> >> We have some nice patches coming up... >>> >> >>> >> >>> > In the interests of being open and improving communications in the >>> > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work >>> > you are planning to do. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > >>> > John >>> >> Dunno if that helps :/ >>> >> >>> >> Jeff >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and >>> >>> working >>> >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting >>> >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. >>> Since its >>> >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the >>> server and >>> >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however >>> interest >>> >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue. >>> >>> >>> >>> Greg Stein wrote: >>> >>> >>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) >>> >>> Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more >>> people >>> involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on >>> this >>> stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes." >>> >>> IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of >>> developers, and >>> especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if >>> you can >>> get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of >>> Geronimo's issues at the same time. >>> >>> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there >>> are >>> many >>> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from >>> eyeballing >>> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't >>> always need >>> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be >>> important to >>> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) >>> >>> >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the >>> >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really >>> like the >>> >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be >>> fixed) I >>> >>> was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was >>> >>> going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats >>> fien. Right >>> >>> now its changing colors and packaging. >>> >>> >>> >>> IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running >>> Eclipse >>> >>> and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be >>> >>> difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get >>> >>> slowed >>> >>> down. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -g >>> >>> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote: >>> >>> > Ken, et al, >>> > >>> > I'm not sure about other people's feeling
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
I agree that "merging" shouldn't require another RTC. So merging of your m2 migration changes should be OK. We need to discuss the situation where merging a change from a branch to trunk isn't a just a simple merge. For example, manual changes needed to be made, e.g. changes to logic because the trunk has moved in a different direction to the branch you are merging from. IMHO, in this scenario, it would be worth discussing the changes on the dev list before proceeding with the merge. Comments on this scenario? John Matt Hogstrom wrote: Prasad, I saw Anita's changes and started reviewing them. Unfortunately, they required more time than I had at the moment and I won't get back to them until this weekend I suspect. I think that since this is a merge of existing work should not necessarily require review since it was existing and we've made the decision to have it merged forward. The ROUS will probably need to comment here. So long as Jaceck is overseeing the work that was previously committed I'm ok with not requiring RTC for this. Matt Prasad Kashyap wrote: Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy. A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed into the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should they now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ? Cheers Prasad On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming in the next 24 hrs. John Sisson wrote: > Jeff Genender wrote: >> Matt, >> >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one >> of the 3)... >> >> We have some nice patches coming up... >> >> > In the interests of being open and improving communications in the > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work > you are planning to do. > > Thanks, > > John >> Dunno if that helps :/ >> >> Jeff >> >> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote: >> >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and >>> working >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. Since its >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however interest >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue. >>> >>> Greg Stein wrote: >>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more people involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes." IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of developers, and especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if you can get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of Geronimo's issues at the same time. IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are many changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from eyeballing it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't always need a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like the >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be fixed) I >>> was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was >>> going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats fien. Right >>> now its changing colors and packaging. >>> >>> IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running Eclipse >>> and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be >>> difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get >>> slowed >>> down. >>> >>> Cheers, -g On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > Ken, et al, > > I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to > the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special > consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees > are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very > limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is > Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the > requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we > have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work. > > I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review > and
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Jason, Thanks. I did start from the old trunk and moved everything to 1.1. The changes made to the existing code (from old trunk) are documented here http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-851#action_12413522 The old and new code does not affect M1 build. There is a separate patch (1 line !) called deploy-tool.patch to switch between M1 and M2 builds. Thanks Anita --- Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I say we just commit the lot of them. Should have no affect on the m1 > build, so risk is low. > > Let's just get the bits from the dead branch onto trunk and then go > from there. > > --jason > > > -Original Message- > From: "Prasad Kashyap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:47:48 > To:[email protected] > Subject: Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo > > Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She > had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy. > > A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed > into > the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the > new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should > they > now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ? > > Cheers > Prasad > > On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's > coming > > in the next 24 hrs. > > > > John Sisson wrote: > > > Jeff Genender wrote: > > >> Matt, > > >> > > >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me > as one > > >> of the 3)... > > >> > > >> We have some nice patches coming up... > > >> > > >> > > > In the interests of being open and improving communications in > the > > > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the > work > > > you are planning to do. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > John > > >> Dunno if that helps :/ > > >> > > >> Jeff > > >> > > >> > > >> Matt Hogstrom wrote: > > >> > > >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking > and > > >>> working > > >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been > getting > > >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. > Since its > > >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the > server and > > >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however > interest > > >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue. > > >>> > > >>> Greg Stein wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) > > >>>> > > >>>> Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be > more > > >>>> people > > >>>> involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working > on this > > >>>> stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes." > > >>>> > > >>>> IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of > > >>>> developers, and > > >>>> especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem > if > > >>>> you can > > >>>> get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve > many of > > >>>> Geronimo's issues at the same time. > > >>>> > > >>>> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... > there are > > >>>> many > > >>>> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from > > >>>> eyeballing > > >>>> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't > > >>>> always need > > >>>> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be > important to > > >>>> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) > > >>>> > > >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since > the > > >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really > like the > > >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be > fixed) I > > >>> was concerned that getting people to i
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
I say we just commit the lot of them. Should have no affect on the m1 build, so risk is low. Let's just get the bits from the dead branch onto trunk and then go from there. --jason -Original Message- From: "Prasad Kashyap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:47:48 To:[email protected] Subject: Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy. A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed into the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should they now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ? Cheers Prasad On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming > in the next 24 hrs. > > John Sisson wrote: > > Jeff Genender wrote: > >> Matt, > >> > >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one > >> of the 3)... > >> > >> We have some nice patches coming up... > >> > >> > > In the interests of being open and improving communications in the > > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work > > you are planning to do. > > > > Thanks, > > > > John > >> Dunno if that helps :/ > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >> > >> Matt Hogstrom wrote: > >> > >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and > >>> working > >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting > >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. Since its > >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and > >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however interest > >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue. > >>> > >>> Greg Stein wrote: > >>> > >>>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) > >>>> > >>>> Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more > >>>> people > >>>> involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this > >>>> stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes." > >>>> > >>>> IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of > >>>> developers, and > >>>> especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if > >>>> you can > >>>> get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of > >>>> Geronimo's issues at the same time. > >>>> > >>>> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are > >>>> many > >>>> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from > >>>> eyeballing > >>>> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't > >>>> always need > >>>> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to > >>>> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) > >>>> > >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the > >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like the > >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be fixed) I > >>> was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was > >>> going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats fien. Right > >>> now its changing colors and packaging. > >>> > >>> IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running Eclipse > >>> and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be > >>> difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get > >>> slowed > >>> down. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> -g > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Ken, et al, > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to > >>>>> the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special > >
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Prasad, I saw Anita's changes and started reviewing them. Unfortunately, they required more time than I had at the moment and I won't get back to them until this weekend I suspect. I think that since this is a merge of existing work should not necessarily require review since it was existing and we've made the decision to have it merged forward. The ROUS will probably need to comment here. So long as Jaceck is overseeing the work that was previously committed I'm ok with not requiring RTC for this. Matt Prasad Kashyap wrote: Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy. A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed into the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should they now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ? Cheers Prasad On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming in the next 24 hrs. John Sisson wrote: > Jeff Genender wrote: >> Matt, >> >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one >> of the 3)... >> >> We have some nice patches coming up... >> >> > In the interests of being open and improving communications in the > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work > you are planning to do. > > Thanks, > > John >> Dunno if that helps :/ >> >> Jeff >> >> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote: >> >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and >>> working >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. Since its >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however interest >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue. >>> >>> Greg Stein wrote: >>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more people involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes." IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of developers, and especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if you can get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of Geronimo's issues at the same time. IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are many changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from eyeballing it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't always need a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like the >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be fixed) I >>> was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was >>> going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats fien. Right >>> now its changing colors and packaging. >>> >>> IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running Eclipse >>> and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be >>> difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get >>> slowed >>> down. >>> >>> Cheers, -g On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > Ken, et al, > > I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to > the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special > consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees > are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very > limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is > Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the > requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we > have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work. > > I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review > and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader. > > Matt > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: >> >> >>> On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. >>
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy. A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed into the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the new 1.2 trunk. So the same patches are being re-submitted. Should they now be subjected to the new RTC guidelines ? Cheers Prasad On 5/24/06, Bryan Noll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming in the next 24 hrs. John Sisson wrote: > Jeff Genender wrote: >> Matt, >> >> I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one >> of the 3)... >> >> We have some nice patches coming up... >> >> > In the interests of being open and improving communications in the > Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work > you are planning to do. > > Thanks, > > John >> Dunno if that helps :/ >> >> Jeff >> >> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote: >> >>> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and >>> working >>> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting >>> additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. Since its >>> a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and >>> has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however interest >>> is growing so the problem is become less of an issue. >>> >>> Greg Stein wrote: >>> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more people involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes." IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of developers, and especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if you can get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of Geronimo's issues at the same time. IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are many changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from eyeballing it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't always need a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) >>> I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the >>> current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like the >>> app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be fixed) I >>> was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was >>> going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats fien. Right >>> now its changing colors and packaging. >>> >>> IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running Eclipse >>> and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be >>> difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get >>> slowed >>> down. >>> >>> Cheers, -g On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > Ken, et al, > > I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to > the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special > consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees > are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very > limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is > Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the > requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we > have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work. > > I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review > and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader. > > Matt > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: >> >> >>> On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. >>> Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our >>> community >>> to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace, >>> but... >>> >>> Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed >>> here >>> openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our >>> cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step >>> out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could >>> have come up with after having read it. >>> >>
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming in the next 24 hrs. John Sisson wrote: Jeff Genender wrote: Matt, I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one of the 3)... We have some nice patches coming up... In the interests of being open and improving communications in the Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work you are planning to do. Thanks, John Dunno if that helps :/ Jeff Matt Hogstrom wrote: I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and working on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. Since its a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however interest is growing so the problem is become less of an issue. Greg Stein wrote: A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more people involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes." IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of developers, and especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if you can get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of Geronimo's issues at the same time. IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are many changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from eyeballing it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't always need a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like the app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be fixed) I was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats fien. Right now its changing colors and packaging. IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running Eclipse and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get slowed down. Cheers, -g On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Ken, et al, I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work. I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader. Matt Jim Jagielski wrote: On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our community to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace, but... Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could have come up with after having read it. Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the board before making any decisions...
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Jeff Genender wrote: Matt, I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one of the 3)... We have some nice patches coming up... In the interests of being open and improving communications in the Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work you are planning to do. Thanks, John Dunno if that helps :/ Jeff Matt Hogstrom wrote: I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and working on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. Since its a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however interest is growing so the problem is become less of an issue. Greg Stein wrote: A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more people involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes." IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of developers, and especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if you can get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of Geronimo's issues at the same time. IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are many changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from eyeballing it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't always need a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like the app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be fixed) I was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats fien. Right now its changing colors and packaging. IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running Eclipse and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get slowed down. Cheers, -g On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Ken, et al, I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work. I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader. Matt Jim Jagielski wrote: On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our community to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace, but... Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could have come up with after having read it. Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the board before making any decisions...
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
I've been pondering the question for a while now... Up to this point, the primary individuals involved in the devtools subproject were either g-users or developers outside the geronimo community and this gives the illusion that there is a lack of interest in this subproject which I do not think is the case. So until we start attracting more "tooling folks" to the community I think development involvement doesn't necessarily have to start from code contribution, but it can start from a discussion and requirements perspective. And I think we are starting to do this. (Dain's and David J's work on ConfigStore enhancements for example have given them more insight as to what is being done in this area). As we move forward and we continue to enhance the integration within the tools and the runtime more of these discussions will occur making others more tools-aware, and hopefully this will start leading code contributions. So in short, I think its just a waiting game and over time I do believe we can get more involvement in these areas. - sachin On May 24, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On May 23, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Ken, et al, I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work. IMO, this is a problem with these codebases then... The 3 +1s has been a very solid and reliable benchmark since before the start of the ASF. What can be done to increase involvement and diversity in those dev trees? -sachin
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
I'd be happy to follow the dev of these 2 trees On May 24, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and working on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. Since its a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however interest is growing so the problem is become less of an issue. Greg Stein wrote: A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more people involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes." IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of developers, and especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if you can get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of Geronimo's issues at the same time. IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are many changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from eyeballing it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't always need a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like the app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be fixed) I was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats fien. Right now its changing colors and packaging. IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running Eclipse and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get slowed down. Cheers, -g On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Ken, et al, I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work. I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader. Matt Jim Jagielski wrote: On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our community to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace, but... Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could have come up with after having read it. Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the board before making any decisions...
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Matt, I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one of the 3)... We have some nice patches coming up... Dunno if that helps :/ Jeff Matt Hogstrom wrote: > I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and working > on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting > additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. Since its > a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and > has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however interest > is growing so the problem is become less of an issue. > > Greg Stein wrote: >> A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) >> >> Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more people >> involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this >> stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes." >> >> IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of developers, and >> especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if you can >> get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of >> Geronimo's issues at the same time. >> >> IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are many >> changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from eyeballing >> it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't always need >> a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to >> request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) > > I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the > current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like the > app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be fixed) I > was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was > going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats fien. Right > now its changing colors and packaging. > > IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running Eclipse > and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be > difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get slowed > down. > >> Cheers, >> -g >> >> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote: >>> Ken, et al, >>> >>> I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to >>> the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special >>> consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees >>> are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very >>> limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is >>> Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the >>> requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we >>> have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work. >>> >>> I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review >>> and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> Jim Jagielski wrote: On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: > On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting >> made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model >> for the time being. >> >> Effective immediately, the development model for Apache >> Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to >> Review-Then-Commit. > Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our community > to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace, > but... > > Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here > openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our > cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step > out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could > have come up with after having read it. > Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the board before making any decisions... >>
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
On May 23, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Ken, et al, I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work. IMO, this is a problem with these codebases then... The 3 +1s has been a very solid and reliable benchmark since before the start of the ASF. What can be done to increase involvement and diversity in those dev trees?
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and working on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting additional activity so we are moving in the right direction. Since its a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and has a different constituency. So, yes, its a problem however interest is growing so the problem is become less of an issue. Greg Stein wrote: A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more people involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes." IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of developers, and especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if you can get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of Geronimo's issues at the same time. IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are many changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from eyeballing it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't always need a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) I think the above was the most significant concern I had since the current lack of active participation (actually, folks really like the app as it uncovers broken pieces in the server that need to be fixed) I was concerned that getting people to install, test and validate was going to be difficult. If people can use their eyes thats fien. Right now its changing colors and packaging. IMHO DevTools is different in that few committers are running Eclipse and working in that area so getting meaningful feedback will be difficult. I guess time will tell but I'd hate to see Sachin get slowed down. Cheers, -g On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote: Ken, et al, I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work. I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader. Matt Jim Jagielski wrote: On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our community to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace, but... Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could have come up with after having read it. Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the board before making any decisions...
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
A shot from the peanut gallery... :-) Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more people involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes." IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of developers, and especially the group of committers. You'll solve your problem if you can get more people working with you. And I think you'll solve many of Geronimo's issues at the same time. IMO #2, I disagree with Ken's "patched in and tested" ... there are many changes that I've reviewed which I can give a +1 on just from eyeballing it. Or provide feedback on what needs to change. IOW, I don't always need a computer to tell me what it does. So I think it may be important to request that Ken officially relaxes that requirement a bit :-) Cheers, -g On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:38:11PM -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > Ken, et al, > > I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to the > Review then commit but I'd like to request some special consideration for > DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees are external to mainline > Geronimo development and as such have a very limited set of people working > on them. For Devtools I think it is Sachin and for DayTrader it is > basically me for now. Based on the requirement for 3 +1s which implies > testing and work I don't think we have enough active commiters in these > branches to make this work. > > I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review and > Commit for Devtools and DayTrader. > > Matt > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > >On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: > > > >>On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>>Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting > >>>made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model > >>>for the time being. > >>> > >>>Effective immediately, the development model for Apache > >>>Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to > >>>Review-Then-Commit. > >> > >>Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our community > >>to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace, > >>but... > >> > >>Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here > >>openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our > >>cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step > >>out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could > >>have come up with after having read it. > >> > > > >Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of > >the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat > >on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the > >board before making any decisions... -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
I didn't see a response to this yet, so here ya go... On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:40:57PM -0700, David Jencks wrote: >... > This might be fine for simple uncontroversial patches such as this > one, but there's a danger that this won't allow much time for review, > especially for complicated changes such as occurred during the > configid/1.1 development. Is there an apache standard minimum wait > time or is this something we have to decide for ourselves? I think > it will be hard to balance proceeding with further work with giving > adequate review time. When calling for votes/opinions/consensus, the typical wait time is 72 hours. That is the generally-accepted value for "people in all time zones have had a chance to see it, potentially working around travel and other real life issues." But code patches don't follow that model. See below: > Personally I'm ok with committing immediately after 3 +1 votes and > rolling back if there is a later -1. This is correct. Note that *your* +1 does not count, per Ken's instructions. Once you have those other +1 votes, then you can assume there is support for the change and go ahead and commit it. Note that a -1 can come in at *any* time. Whether 5 minutes later, 5 days, 5 weeks, or 5 months. Roy would even say 5 years, but I tend to disagree with that :-) The point is, that at any time, somebody should be able to say "woah. that wasn't right, for reasons. we shouldn't ship that change until we talk about this to figure out the right answer." It may take a while for somebody to realize the full ramifications of a change, which is why there is no "statute of limitations" on vetoes. That said: it is also polite to at least raise a concern before pulling out the veto card. A veto can be considered rather anti-social, so it is good to try and avoid them whenever possible. One of the best ways to do that is to avoid creating the situation in the first place. "hmm. I think this code might not agree with everybody. let me post the patch to the list for discussion first." (of course, in RTC, that is always the case, so the idea is most important under the CTR model) Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
So, I think I did the first commit based on this policy, for GERONIMO-2006, what I think is a completely uncontroversial patch, and want to check out the timing factor. The time from my proposal to patch to the third unequivocal +1 was 1hr 34 minutes. (I couldn't tell if jsisson's +1 was for the bug fix part only or the whole patch, so I decided to be unreasonably pedantic and not count it: counting it the time was 56 minutes). This might be fine for simple uncontroversial patches such as this one, but there's a danger that this won't allow much time for review, especially for complicated changes such as occurred during the configid/1.1 development. Is there an apache standard minimum wait time or is this something we have to decide for ourselves? I think it will be hard to balance proceeding with further work with giving adequate review time. Personally I'm ok with committing immediately after 3 +1 votes and rolling back if there is a later -1. I'm still mystified by the claims of intimidation and back-room deals so obviously I may not be a good judge of what is appropriate here. I do think that a waiting period longer than 24 hours is likely to encourage gigantic full- feature patches that are extremely hard to review rather than little bits of incremental progress that can easily be comprehended at once. We might be able to use svk to reduce this problem, but that has its own problems (no idea plugin). I'm going to be travelling and offline most of the time until next tuesday so will most likely have to pick up the discussion at that point. thanks david jencks On May 21, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. This means that all code changes that aren't for documentation or a specific bug fix need to be submitted as patches to the [email protected] list before getting committed. They can get applied after three other committers have voted +1 -- which in this mode means 'I have applied this patch and tested it and found it good' -- and no committers have vetoed it. I'm doing this to put to rest widespread concerns that development in Geronimo *isn't* being done entirely in the open. It's a drastic step, but those concerns have been around for a while and just don't seem to be going away. This also means that everyone needs to take interest in the changes being proposed for the code. Everyone knowing more about what everyone else is doing isn't a bad thing, and cooperating more to get them made isn't a bad thing either. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHD+TZrNPMCpn3XdAQJ9FwQAlwe2L+SvgffPyPSvXi0GjefJBSN/DZtQ CPE/OPkJrC8QxKegPsu4wRmYJK0HkilWkojglPYSZkKEP94fOIEA+R3Nh+IByo+D q8LF12qpkvxI9RjsEMEqa3+awNt7uag0GT0WgMDEX3VMupPRq3X52V7XiSzATqmp rwb0h13AQlc= =LjSH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Ken, et al, I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees are external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very limited set of people working on them. For Devtools I think it is Sachin and for DayTrader it is basically me for now. Based on the requirement for 3 +1s which implies testing and work I don't think we have enough active commiters in these branches to make this work. I would like to solicit input on and request an exception to Review and Commit for Devtools and DayTrader. Matt Jim Jagielski wrote: On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our community to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace, but... Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could have come up with after having read it. Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the board before making any decisions...
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > Dain Sundstrom wrote: >> Yes. I believe my answer was covered by your answer to Jan, "No, the >> experimental areas continue as they have. Only the main lines and >> branches of development are affected." >> >> I have an experimental branch in XBean to introduce named constructor >> args, and would commit more work to it (it's not done... it is a >> difficult problem). > > Yes, there's no change to that sort of thing. There's > still the same freedom for people to branch off to > experiment. Of course, if it ever comes back to any of the main development streams, it needs to do so in the form of patches submitted to the dev list. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHMkf5rNPMCpn3XdAQLNQgQAhCWYJ7Xh4/U2vGYo/cEEwLe62yKUzb8m 4S0kjMZwrN+aVXF+1EeAOqrvKwhWJeqiEIy8Z9YfP1NFsgL+4tG92R1Aq6/0hGH2 jJdzMcRzwVyPmF2vUeJn41dFHgPl+AEqzvnNIFyt2icOYp9tcOeTFcXji50QSut7 31Yf8XM9Vac= =HpCJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dain Sundstrom wrote: > Yes. I believe my answer was covered by your answer to Jan, "No, the > experimental areas continue as they have. Only the main lines and > branches of development are affected." > > I have an experimental branch in XBean to introduce named constructor > args, and would commit more work to it (it's not done... it is a > difficult problem). Yes, there's no change to that sort of thing. There's still the same freedom for people to branch off to experiment. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHIKGprNPMCpn3XdAQLISAP/Z+Fo6S3Pg/tGsOlz2mOJibv7Z62DHjCV BTNwmI5p1GDdfuR6DCqARWz3vQAKjHAmHpBMJBDvUhSXqRHFCdVH44i5e4XClYUj L263NtTPgH0Atj0xW6Lc36S3Cg64Yjdtan1YfgcSbJalat5M+ERImI2PZiL9WbpJ 3upB/lyMytM= =JJzt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Yes. I believe my answer was covered by your answer to Jan, "No, the experimental areas continue as they have. Only the main lines and branches of development are affected." I have an experimental branch in XBean to introduce named constructor args, and would commit more work to it (it's not done... it is a difficult problem). -dain On May 22, 2006, at 3:41 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dain Sundstrom wrote: Do revolution rules still apply or have they been suspended by fiat also? Do you mean this? http://incubator.apache.org/learn/rules-for-revolutionaries.html - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHGVS5rNPMCpn3XdAQJLkAQAs61MrDlZ9VWJGXDaPkcwbT3TltPJac94 whXimBqR+bpI+W2Qve+1nEhGP+ndRa9PzhUP13qTItRLAYH7qP7ltX8JwTEfOkjV HhN5PNbeQUvwSjqu2gIWm90XacPda16skdnCdVdMJwzJEJbTYCHVbLEb2VmH6339 AQhjKVEZtrk= =JRsz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matt Hogstrom wrote: > Just to clarify then. Daytrader has some final tweaks that are > required to get it out for 1.1 (adjusting some packaging and such). > I would consider this bug fixes and not rework (like adding a new > feature). I assume this can happen without opening JIRAs and > submitting patches for review. Yeah, that should be fine. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHHORZrNPMCpn3XdAQLyBAQA0f2bQuMsmICp5lFNnjYACwxSn+Re7Y9k pR7VvWx03fGZSVyyGwg+SMQOY7ygW/SfXyWN3WW2BWL1c5yXy/2uYf0dQdU0D0pF 1xOL8aOite5FObrhb3iPjmVFztRg6ecVp6XnFtF2Uu+5n3o+t3lSG662nUnfCG1w nBExRwc7I5M= =nbpy -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Just to clarify then. Daytrader has some final tweaks that are required to get it out for 1.1 (adjusting some packaging and such). I would consider this bug fixes and not rework (like adding a new feature). I assume this can happen without opening JIRAs and submitting patches for review. Sachin Patel wrote: Does this apply only to the "geronimo" code base or all subprojects as well? (XBean, DevTools, GBuild, etc...)? - sachin On May 21, 2006, at 7:57 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. This means that all code changes that aren't for documentation or a specific bug fix need to be submitted as patches to the [email protected] list before getting committed. They can get applied after three other committers have voted +1 -- which in this mode means 'I have applied this patch and tested it and found it good' -- and no committers have vetoed it. I'm doing this to put to rest widespread concerns that development in Geronimo *isn't* being done entirely in the open. It's a drastic step, but those concerns have been around for a while and just don't seem to be going away. This also means that everyone needs to take interest in the changes being proposed for the code. Everyone knowing more about what everyone else is doing isn't a bad thing, and cooperating more to get them made isn't a bad thing either. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHD+TZrNPMCpn3XdAQJ9FwQAlwe2L+SvgffPyPSvXi0GjefJBSN/DZtQ CPE/OPkJrC8QxKegPsu4wRmYJK0HkilWkojglPYSZkKEP94fOIEA+R3Nh+IByo+D q8LF12qpkvxI9RjsEMEqa3+awNt7uag0GT0WgMDEX3VMupPRq3X52V7XiSzATqmp rwb0h13AQlc= =LjSH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -sachin
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our community to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace, but... Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could have come up with after having read it. Just in case there is any confusion, Ken has the full support of the board regarding this. I'm saying this with my board hat on. In true ASF spirit, Ken discussed this with the board before making any decisions...
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jacek Laskowski wrote: > > Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here > openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our > cooperation/openness? Oh, and by all means this should be discussed. Among other aspects, it'd be appropriate to discuss what might be going on that prompted such a change. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHGc+ZrNPMCpn3XdAQLp7gQAhhag51bciwg4wNVlqTb0ucCEQHZ2fhju W4zbf2AQlcjRRjlzkbZXRMryq23utPNSm/QBhTdwT/TjXkNtVHYE4zL+EfJZdJxw VqAqP6mPhWBUU5kFPkNPJlZNpxUdP2taDQmuchwj2SIRxuyrwTPTWXdgQWZsn3UC 2IOvkaBezvY= =vJI7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jan Bartel wrote: > > Do these rules also apply to stuff in the sandboxes? No, the experimental areas continue as they have. Only the main lines and branches of development are affected. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHGcW5rNPMCpn3XdAQJR2wQAkzjnI5r6AaytAvI+jtG7vYQqeYAMdz0G 74lk+qnzg4SWuFSwZYhFZzRW/sWPJWBSK7CuZT3lVpj+vXaoOFB1pdsjduuRTU6V jdbC7UZquluOx+npIKFJZNWwHLBFgpeIOFuQ3gb/UPtrSVKCoDmGQIR8dgGTRPox pPMEIrJVzu4= =0ybQ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jacek Laskowski wrote: > > Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here > openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our > cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step > out and change the rules just like that? The message that I'm in receipt of numerous messages expressing concerns, many by people who feel intimidated about raising them publicly. The message that hints and nudges and commentary have been inadequate to the task of changing things such that the concerns are allayed. The message that the continued existence -- over months -- of these concerns represents a situation detrimental to the project. The message that this is an Apache project, not a Codehaus or SourceForge one, and that I personally am ultimately responsible to Apache for its healthy functioning. Forcing approval to happen in the open rather than by default will either alter the nature of code changes or it won't. If it does the concerns may have foundation; if it doesn't they should be put to rest thereby. This is not something I did either lightly or arbitrarily. - -- #kenP-|} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHGbWZrNPMCpn3XdAQLgZAQAxXyzqkZoNL0VxaGOe3mxmXdrm1Xm7MMU UPRmZb+z+9lyptjf2ifBAn/t7xblcgdQ2xK3tLjv6xpQY9BhOmdv8inArC099HsA zMXRT3+dFU0DxzcyVC5dICG3YNQ+HK4yjmnvnuT/3xvfgueFRhddQp0CYZ71oDXU +I8iM6pb1I4= =2DEb -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Ken, Do these rules also apply to stuff in the sandboxes? Jan Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. This means that all code changes that aren't for documentation or a specific bug fix need to be submitted as patches to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list before getting committed. They can get applied after three other committers have voted +1 -- which in this mode means 'I have applied this patch and tested it and found it good' -- and no committers have vetoed it. I'm doing this to put to rest widespread concerns that development in Geronimo *isn't* being done entirely in the open. It's a drastic step, but those concerns have been around for a while and just don't seem to be going away. This also means that everyone needs to take interest in the changes being proposed for the code. Everyone knowing more about what everyone else is doing isn't a bad thing, and cooperating more to get them made isn't a bad thing either. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHD+TZrNPMCpn3XdAQJ9FwQAlwe2L+SvgffPyPSvXi0GjefJBSN/DZtQ CPE/OPkJrC8QxKegPsu4wRmYJK0HkilWkojglPYSZkKEP94fOIEA+R3Nh+IByo+D q8LF12qpkvxI9RjsEMEqa3+awNt7uag0GT0WgMDEX3VMupPRq3X52V7XiSzATqmp rwb0h13AQlc= =LjSH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jason Dillon wrote: > What concerns about changes are you speaking of? I have so far seen > no such concerns. Can you please elaborate. By their very natures you wouldn't see them blatantly stated. Concerns that have been brought to me, from people both inside and outside the project, that too much is going on in backchannels and offline; that som changes are being pushed through by mutual offline agreements among the strongest personalities; that the voting/veto system is being 'gamed;' that private email is being used to intimidate people who would raise flags. That anyone has such concerns is bad enough. That they're held by no small number of people calls for steps to be taken to show them founded or unfounded. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHGXWZrNPMCpn3XdAQJtkgP/UXsUfoOyeN4zoU+lJYTLasNPrPkoqAS1 Pj1kJhePkj0PkUGO/rGqK+6o5WiNTUDDyLCzOe4g8eqAGMqnlyGC2QzhwfIWSV2W weqFK0PQ0RDU2Yqr3uqxnF2syITXkKHL0OfqO7MDUutuhzfoVL3TqBJRoGj4/l0R tUQTGxDBUnI= =QFNj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dain Sundstrom wrote: > Do revolution rules still apply or have they been suspended by fiat > also? Do you mean this? http://incubator.apache.org/learn/rules-for-revolutionaries.html - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHGVS5rNPMCpn3XdAQJLkAQAs61MrDlZ9VWJGXDaPkcwbT3TltPJac94 whXimBqR+bpI+W2Qve+1nEhGP+ndRa9PzhUP13qTItRLAYH7qP7ltX8JwTEfOkjV HhN5PNbeQUvwSjqu2gIWm90XacPda16skdnCdVdMJwzJEJbTYCHVbLEb2VmH6339 AQhjKVEZtrk= =JRsz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sachin Patel wrote: > Does this apply only to the "geronimo" code base or all subprojects > as well? (XBean, DevTools, GBuild, etc...)? It applies to all codebases which are part of the Geronimo project. It does not apply to things like the ServiceMix or ActiveMQ codebases, for example, because they're not part of Geronimo. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHGT2prNPMCpn3XdAQL1tgQA2E6JEw1Nb35n8eK1tQlAnYI2SJllzQoe +cUYKrFH2tOGq7ix2ir8sPT5T3KHVOF2T9jo5ojq8gsl3A8uvFbxWaUHQ4Mv0aAZ t0ilkT9jO6F5ZfgjQZoZzmm1My1YadsWc7w1H5cHAk/BBuBivOOudZt+EFpbVWvy HirvCjoFHnw= =uhgv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. Not that I don't like the idea as it may eventually help our community to understand changes before they get applied and keep up the pace, but... Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step out and change the rules just like that? Just a thought many could have come up with after having read it. #kenP-)} Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Do revolution rules still apply or have they been suspended by fiat also? -dain On May 21, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. This means that all code changes that aren't for documentation or a specific bug fix need to be submitted as patches to the [email protected] list before getting committed. They can get applied after three other committers have voted +1 -- which in this mode means 'I have applied this patch and tested it and found it good' -- and no committers have vetoed it. I'm doing this to put to rest widespread concerns that development in Geronimo *isn't* being done entirely in the open. It's a drastic step, but those concerns have been around for a while and just don't seem to be going away. This also means that everyone needs to take interest in the changes being proposed for the code. Everyone knowing more about what everyone else is doing isn't a bad thing, and cooperating more to get them made isn't a bad thing either. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHD+TZrNPMCpn3XdAQJ9FwQAlwe2L+SvgffPyPSvXi0GjefJBSN/DZtQ CPE/OPkJrC8QxKegPsu4wRmYJK0HkilWkojglPYSZkKEP94fOIEA+R3Nh+IByo+D q8LF12qpkvxI9RjsEMEqa3+awNt7uag0GT0WgMDEX3VMupPRq3X52V7XiSzATqmp rwb0h13AQlc= =LjSH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Does this apply only to the "geronimo" code base or all subprojects as well? (XBean, DevTools, GBuild, etc...)? - sachin On May 21, 2006, at 7:57 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. This means that all code changes that aren't for documentation or a specific bug fix need to be submitted as patches to the [email protected] list before getting committed. They can get applied after three other committers have voted +1 -- which in this mode means 'I have applied this patch and tested it and found it good' -- and no committers have vetoed it. I'm doing this to put to rest widespread concerns that development in Geronimo *isn't* being done entirely in the open. It's a drastic step, but those concerns have been around for a while and just don't seem to be going away. This also means that everyone needs to take interest in the changes being proposed for the code. Everyone knowing more about what everyone else is doing isn't a bad thing, and cooperating more to get them made isn't a bad thing either. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHD+TZrNPMCpn3XdAQJ9FwQAlwe2L+SvgffPyPSvXi0GjefJBSN/DZtQ CPE/OPkJrC8QxKegPsu4wRmYJK0HkilWkojglPYSZkKEP94fOIEA+R3Nh+IByo+D q8LF12qpkvxI9RjsEMEqa3+awNt7uag0GT0WgMDEX3VMupPRq3X52V7XiSzATqmp rwb0h13AQlc= =LjSH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -sachin
Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
What concerns about changes are you speaking of? I have so far seen no such concerns. Can you please elaborate. --jason On May 21, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting made in the codebase, I am changing the commit model for the time being. Effective immediately, the development model for Apache Geronimo is changed from Commit-Then-Review to Review-Then-Commit. This means that all code changes that aren't for documentation or a specific bug fix need to be submitted as patches to the [email protected] list before getting committed. They can get applied after three other committers have voted +1 -- which in this mode means 'I have applied this patch and tested it and found it good' -- and no committers have vetoed it. I'm doing this to put to rest widespread concerns that development in Geronimo *isn't* being done entirely in the open. It's a drastic step, but those concerns have been around for a while and just don't seem to be going away. This also means that everyone needs to take interest in the changes being proposed for the code. Everyone knowing more about what everyone else is doing isn't a bad thing, and cooperating more to get them made isn't a bad thing either. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHD+TZrNPMCpn3XdAQJ9FwQAlwe2L+SvgffPyPSvXi0GjefJBSN/DZtQ CPE/OPkJrC8QxKegPsu4wRmYJK0HkilWkojglPYSZkKEP94fOIEA+R3Nh+IByo+D q8LF12qpkvxI9RjsEMEqa3+awNt7uag0GT0WgMDEX3VMupPRq3X52V7XiSzATqmp rwb0h13AQlc= =LjSH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
