Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
On 7/5/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: David Jencks wrote: > Sometime later ken appears > to have commmented on this policy with an interpretation that is > radically different from the original very clear statement with an > comment deep in a thread. Personally I find that rather ambiguous. Appropriately so. I failed to explain the reason for the change. I apologise. > Not to insult any pmc members, but it appears that this is an issue > on which the PMC has absolutely no input. Not correct. > As such, it is difficult > for me to trust comments on this issue from anyone other than Ken. Trust, or consider authoritative? Thanks Ken for coming over - we all missed you much! ;-) #kenP-|} Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Jencks wrote: > > I do not think that Ken is providing sufficient communication to the > dev list. As matt pointed out, the original edict to the dev list > and ken's blog entry clearly and unequivocally stated that committer > votes were binding for commit decisions. As I just mentioned in another reply, I was mistaken. See http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary#Vote > Sometime later ken appears > to have commmented on this policy with an interpretation that is > radically different from the original very clear statement with an > comment deep in a thread. Personally I find that rather ambiguous. Appropriately so. I failed to explain the reason for the change. I apologise. > Not to insult any pmc members, but it appears that this is an issue > on which the PMC has absolutely no input. Not correct. > As such, it is difficult > for me to trust comments on this issue from anyone other than Ken. Trust, or consider authoritative? - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRKvxpJrNPMCpn3XdAQIebQQAw7VDI+nrjo3+pevHC03I7Oj8GnsifTDd 2OzEulM1M/7Y9tdDw+TBaV5QMgFd1pt2U+p2zFZBPs7wOn4kl6bAc+WVSX765mil uRKr56I58ewGrsqCv/SpTbpNexzFRHewsR8cx7jus3ByjC5Bc13sHwHiLEhLTsA6 8BhX7UEtIVA= =qA23 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matt Hogstrom wrote: > I do not believe the +1's need to be from PMC members but other > committers. This is a snippet from Ken's personal web page: > > "Consequently, acting ex officio my VP/chair of Apache Geronimo role, > yesterday (Sunday, 21 May 2006) I changed the project's development > model from CTR (Commit-Then-Review) to RTC (Review-Then-Commit). This > means that all code changes that aren't to documentation or specific > bug fixes must be proposed to the development list as patches, and > three *[other] committers* need to verify them and vote in favour of > them before they can be applied to the code in the repository. (This > doesn't apply to the sandboxes and experimental areas, only the main > lines and branches of development.)" > > In Ken's original e-mail the vote required three other committers and > not specifically PMC members. I was mistaken. See http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary#Vote If all committers are on the PMC, the distinction vanishes -- but we do not have that situation. I apologise for the confusion. - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRKvwmprNPMCpn3XdAQKPBAP/f9gq3fnJ/mL1mKC0yUwm84z4RDUa2Ts4 C/a8Kgc25BiIS6YNCCvAPYN1e0WDMpCtNEa6m7sgeel9xytjYm9ZKFaVZ+P4nMts FTcgdR8quFv7TZpMfCd/hbOPUujRF8/aHlr8sqJI0/wGA2lgJHdooo6tx3H/8ROC TLFdg1lQns8= =f5Hn -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
On 7/5/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Not to insult any pmc members, but it appears that this is an issue on which the PMC has absolutely no input. As such, it is difficult for me to trust comments on this issue from anyone other than Ken. I couldn't have expressed it clearer! That's how it turned out to me as well, so I'll await Ken's comment/explanation on it. Thanks Dave for such a clear statement. It's sad, but the more we talk about it the more visible it is to me. Having said/read this, I should no longer be connected to the actions wrt RTC, ok? (uff, much much better now! Thanks Dave). david jencks Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
David, I will ensure this gets followed up by Ken. CCing the PMC. Regards, John David Jencks wrote: On Jul 4, 2006, at 4:54 PM, John Sisson wrote: Matt Hogstrom wrote: I do not believe the +1's need to be from PMC members but other committers. This is a snippet from Ken's personal web page: "Consequently, acting ex officio my VP/chair of Apache Geronimo role, yesterday (Sunday, 21 May 2006) I changed the project's development model from CTR (Commit-Then-Review) to RTC (Review-Then-Commit). This means that all code changes that aren't to documentation or specific bug fixes must be proposed to the development list as patches, and three *[other] committers* need to verify them and vote in favour of them before they can be applied to the code in the repository. (This doesn't apply to the sandboxes and experimental areas, only the main lines and branches of development.)" In Ken's original e-mail the vote required three other committers and not specifically PMC members. Here is the original e-mail. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] It is my understanding that the an RTC request needs 3 other committers to +1 it and does not require the other +1's to be PMC members. I understand that there has been confusion due to the original message from Ken mentioning committers in his original message, but Ken cleared this up in a message on the 18th of June (since his blog entry on the 22nd May). Please see http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg24899.html Nobody should assume anything has changed from requiring 3 binding votes for RTC until they hear otherwise from Ken. I do not think that Ken is providing sufficient communication to the dev list. As matt pointed out, the original edict to the dev list and ken's blog entry clearly and unequivocally stated that committer votes were binding for commit decisions. Sometime later ken appears to have commmented on this policy with an interpretation that is radically different from the original very clear statement with an comment deep in a thread. Personally I find that rather ambiguous. I think that if Ken has any interest in having clear rules that he has an obligation to clearly state changes to them either in the thread in which the rules are originally promulgated or in a separate thread but in any case clearly indicating what has changed. Not to insult any pmc members, but it appears that this is an issue on which the PMC has absolutely no input. As such, it is difficult for me to trust comments on this issue from anyone other than Ken. thanks david jencks I encourage those not on the PMC to also vote on RTC requests as your input is valuable. John Hiram Chirino wrote: Whoa! I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC member looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes. Imagine how long it would take if we had to get 3 PMC +1! I think we need to clear this up ASAP! On 7/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AFAIK, it has never changed from having three binding +1 votes from the PMC, which is why there is an issue with a bottleneck processing RTCs due to the size of the PMC. It may not have been clearly communicated that that is how RTC works. See Ken's comment in http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg24899.html Also see http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html where it says "Only votes by PMC members are considered binding on code-modification issues". Made change below... John Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > I don't understand how things changed from an RTC needing three +1 > votes from other committers to three +1 votes from a PMC member. Did > I miss an email that got sent out from the PMC? > > > Regards, > Alan > > John Sisson wrote: >> One of the issues I see with the current process we have for changes >> under RTC is that it is hard to keep track of what patches are >> pending RTC. >> >> Ken suggested that we reintroduce the STATUS file as a way of keeping >> track of the status of patches ( >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg24780.html ). >> On the same thread, Dain suggested introducing a "review-required" >> status in JIRA ( >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg25122.html ) >> and is the method of tracking work that I prefer. >> >> PROPOSAL >> >> 1. Add a "review-required" and "review-complete" statuses to JIRA. I >> thought having two statuses might allow a cleaner workflow in JIRA, >> but would be interested in hearing others opinions. >> >> 2. To make it easy for those reviewing and voting on the patches >> (there could end up being a number of revisions of the patch before >> it is accepted) the file names of the patches attached to the JIRA >> should be prefixed with the JIRA issue identifier followe
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
On Jul 4, 2006, at 4:54 PM, John Sisson wrote: Matt Hogstrom wrote: I do not believe the +1's need to be from PMC members but other committers. This is a snippet from Ken's personal web page: "Consequently, acting ex officio my VP/chair of Apache Geronimo role, yesterday (Sunday, 21 May 2006) I changed the project's development model from CTR (Commit-Then-Review) to RTC (Review- Then-Commit). This means that all code changes that aren't to documentation or specific bug fixes must be proposed to the development list as patches, and three *[other] committers* need to verify them and vote in favour of them before they can be applied to the code in the repository. (This doesn't apply to the sandboxes and experimental areas, only the main lines and branches of development.)" In Ken's original e-mail the vote required three other committers and not specifically PMC members. Here is the original e-mail. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200605.mbox/% [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is my understanding that the an RTC request needs 3 other committers to +1 it and does not require the other +1's to be PMC members. I understand that there has been confusion due to the original message from Ken mentioning committers in his original message, but Ken cleared this up in a message on the 18th of June (since his blog entry on the 22nd May). Please see http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ msg24899.html Nobody should assume anything has changed from requiring 3 binding votes for RTC until they hear otherwise from Ken. I do not think that Ken is providing sufficient communication to the dev list. As matt pointed out, the original edict to the dev list and ken's blog entry clearly and unequivocally stated that committer votes were binding for commit decisions. Sometime later ken appears to have commmented on this policy with an interpretation that is radically different from the original very clear statement with an comment deep in a thread. Personally I find that rather ambiguous. I think that if Ken has any interest in having clear rules that he has an obligation to clearly state changes to them either in the thread in which the rules are originally promulgated or in a separate thread but in any case clearly indicating what has changed. Not to insult any pmc members, but it appears that this is an issue on which the PMC has absolutely no input. As such, it is difficult for me to trust comments on this issue from anyone other than Ken. thanks david jencks I encourage those not on the PMC to also vote on RTC requests as your input is valuable. John Hiram Chirino wrote: Whoa! I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC member looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes. Imagine how long it would take if we had to get 3 PMC +1! I think we need to clear this up ASAP! On 7/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AFAIK, it has never changed from having three binding +1 votes from the PMC, which is why there is an issue with a bottleneck processing RTCs due to the size of the PMC. It may not have been clearly communicated that that is how RTC works. See Ken's comment in http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg24899.html Also see http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html where it says "Only votes by PMC members are considered binding on code- modification issues". Made change below... John Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > I don't understand how things changed from an RTC needing three +1 > votes from other committers to three +1 votes from a PMC member. Did > I miss an email that got sent out from the PMC? > > > Regards, > Alan > > John Sisson wrote: >> One of the issues I see with the current process we have for changes >> under RTC is that it is hard to keep track of what patches are >> pending RTC. >> >> Ken suggested that we reintroduce the STATUS file as a way of keeping >> track of the status of patches ( >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/ msg24780.html ). >> On the same thread, Dain suggested introducing a "review- required" >> status in JIRA ( >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/ msg25122.html ) >> and is the method of tracking work that I prefer. >> >> PROPOSAL >> >> 1. Add a "review-required" and "review-complete" statuses to JIRA. I >> thought having two statuses might allow a cleaner workflow in JIRA, >> but would be interested in hearing others opinions. >> >> 2. To make it easy for those reviewing and voting on the patches >> (there could end up being a number of revisions of the patch before >> it is accepted) the file names of the patches attached to the JIRA >> should be prefixed with the JIRA issue identifier followed by an >> optional text followed by a mandator
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
Matt Hogstrom wrote: I do not believe the +1's need to be from PMC members but other committers. This is a snippet from Ken's personal web page: "Consequently, acting ex officio my VP/chair of Apache Geronimo role, yesterday (Sunday, 21 May 2006) I changed the project's development model from CTR (Commit-Then-Review) to RTC (Review-Then-Commit). This means that all code changes that aren't to documentation or specific bug fixes must be proposed to the development list as patches, and three *[other] committers* need to verify them and vote in favour of them before they can be applied to the code in the repository. (This doesn't apply to the sandboxes and experimental areas, only the main lines and branches of development.)" In Ken's original e-mail the vote required three other committers and not specifically PMC members. Here is the original e-mail. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] It is my understanding that the an RTC request needs 3 other committers to +1 it and does not require the other +1's to be PMC members. I understand that there has been confusion due to the original message from Ken mentioning committers in his original message, but Ken cleared this up in a message on the 18th of June (since his blog entry on the 22nd May). Please see http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg24899.html Nobody should assume anything has changed from requiring 3 binding votes for RTC until they hear otherwise from Ken. I encourage those not on the PMC to also vote on RTC requests as your input is valuable. John Hiram Chirino wrote: Whoa! I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC member looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes. Imagine how long it would take if we had to get 3 PMC +1! I think we need to clear this up ASAP! On 7/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AFAIK, it has never changed from having three binding +1 votes from the PMC, which is why there is an issue with a bottleneck processing RTCs due to the size of the PMC. It may not have been clearly communicated that that is how RTC works. See Ken's comment in http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg24899.html Also see http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html where it says "Only votes by PMC members are considered binding on code-modification issues". Made change below... John Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > I don't understand how things changed from an RTC needing three +1 > votes from other committers to three +1 votes from a PMC member. Did > I miss an email that got sent out from the PMC? > > > Regards, > Alan > > John Sisson wrote: >> One of the issues I see with the current process we have for changes >> under RTC is that it is hard to keep track of what patches are >> pending RTC. >> >> Ken suggested that we reintroduce the STATUS file as a way of keeping >> track of the status of patches ( >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg24780.html ). >> On the same thread, Dain suggested introducing a "review-required" >> status in JIRA ( >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg25122.html ) >> and is the method of tracking work that I prefer. >> >> PROPOSAL >> >> 1. Add a "review-required" and "review-complete" statuses to JIRA. I >> thought having two statuses might allow a cleaner workflow in JIRA, >> but would be interested in hearing others opinions. >> >> 2. To make it easy for those reviewing and voting on the patches >> (there could end up being a number of revisions of the patch before >> it is accepted) the file names of the patches attached to the JIRA >> should be prefixed with the JIRA issue identifier followed by an >> optional text followed by a mandatory patch version number (starting >> at 1). >> Example patch names: >> >>GERONIMO-1234-FixNPE-v1 >>GERONIMO-1234-FixNPE-v2 (second attempt at patch) >>GERONIMO-3421-v1 >> >> 2.1 This status should only be set by a committer (can we can get >> JIRA to enforce this?) when they have tested the patch attached to >> the JIRA and believe it is ready for review. 2.2 The JIRA should >> contain all information about the patch. If the changes were >> previously discussed on the dev list prior to the JIRA being created, >> a summary of the discussions should be moved into the JIRA so that >> those reviewing the patch have all the information in one place. It >> would also be preferable to add links to the original discussions on >> the dev list archives. The way we document changes may be subject >> to change (e.g. detailed documentation placed in a linked JIRA) based >> upon the outcome of the discussions in the thread "[DISCUSS] Tracking >> documentation tasks in JIRA ( was Re: [RTC] Clarification please from >> the PMC )" >> >> 2.3 Each PMC member who reviews the patch at
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
whew... thanks for clearing that up Matt!On 7/4/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I do not believe the +1's need to be from PMC members but other committers. This is a snippet fromKen's personal web page:"Consequently, acting ex officio my VP/chair of Apache Geronimo role, yesterday (Sunday, 21 May 2006) I changed the project's development model from CTR (Commit-Then-Review) to RTC(Review-Then-Commit). This means that all code changes that aren't to documentation or specific bugfixes must be proposed to the development list as patches, and three *[other] committers* need to verify them and vote in favour of them before they can be applied to the code in the repository.(This doesn't apply to the sandboxes and experimental areas, only the main lines and branches ofdevelopment.)" In Ken's original e-mail the vote required three other committers and not specifically PMC members. Here is the original e-mail. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]It is my understanding that the an RTC request needs 3 other committers to +1 it and does notrequire the other +1's to be PMC members. Hiram Chirino wrote:> Whoa!>> I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I> committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC member> looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes. Imagine > how long it would take if we had to get 3 PMC +1! I think we need to clear> this up ASAP!>> On 7/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AFAIK, it has never changed from having three binding +1 votes from the>> PMC, which is why there is an issue with a bottleneck processing RTCs>> due to the size of the PMC.>> >> It may not have been clearly communicated that that is how RTC works. See Ken's comment in>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg24899.html Also see http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html where it says>> "Only votes by PMC members are considered binding on code-modification >> issues". Made change below... John Alan D. Cabrera wrote:>> > I don't understand how things changed from an RTC needing three +1 >> > votes from other committers to three +1 votes from a PMC member. Did>> > I miss an email that got sent out from the PMC?>> >>> >>> > Regards,>> > Alan >> >>> > John Sisson wrote:>> >> One of the issues I see with the current process we have for changes>> >> under RTC is that it is hard to keep track of what patches are >> >> pending RTC.>> >> Ken suggested that we reintroduce the STATUS file as a way of keeping>> >> track of the status of patches (>> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg24780.html ).>> >> On the same thread, Dain suggested introducing a "review-required" >> >> status in JIRA (>> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg25122.html )>> >> and is the method of tracking work that I prefer. >> >> PROPOSAL>> >> 1. Add a "review-required" and "review-complete" statuses to JIRA. I>> >> thought having two statuses might allow a cleaner workflow in JIRA, >> >> but would be interested in hearing others opinions.>> >> 2. To make it easy for those reviewing and voting on the patches>> >> (there could end up being a number of revisions of the patch before >> >> it is accepted) the file names of the patches attached to the JIRA>> >> should be prefixed with the JIRA issue identifier followed by an>> >> optional text followed by a mandatory patch version number (starting >> >> at 1).>> >> Example patch names:>> >>GERONIMO-1234-FixNPE-v1>> >>GERONIMO-1234-FixNPE-v2 (second attempt at patch)>> >>GERONIMO-3421-v1 >> >> 2.1 This status should only be set by a committer (can we can get>> >> JIRA to enforce this?) when they have tested the patch attached to>> >> the JIRA and believe it is ready for review. 2.2 The JIRA should>> >> contain all information about the patch. If the changes were>> >> previously discussed on the dev list prior to the JIRA being created,>> >> a summary of the discussions should be moved into the JIRA so that >> >> those reviewing the patch have all the information in one place. It>> >> would also be preferable to add links to the original discussions on>> >> the dev list archives. The way we document changes may be subject >> >> to change (e.g. detailed documentation placed in a linked JIRA) based>> >> upon the outcome of the discussions in the thread "[DISCUSS] Tracking>> >> documentation tasks in JIRA ( was Re: [RTC] Clarification please from >> >> the PMC )">> >> 2.3 Each PMC member who reviews the patch attached to the JIRA must>> >> do the following:>> >> * Add a JIRA comment containing the file name of the patch they >> >> reviewed. This is so there is no confusion if there ends up being>> >> multiple revisions of the patch when collating votes.>> >>* In the JIRA comment add the results of their review ( e.g.>> >> comments or a vo
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
I do not believe the +1's need to be from PMC members but other committers. This is a snippet from Ken's personal web page: "Consequently, acting ex officio my VP/chair of Apache Geronimo role, yesterday (Sunday, 21 May 2006) I changed the project's development model from CTR (Commit-Then-Review) to RTC (Review-Then-Commit). This means that all code changes that aren't to documentation or specific bug fixes must be proposed to the development list as patches, and three *[other] committers* need to verify them and vote in favour of them before they can be applied to the code in the repository. (This doesn't apply to the sandboxes and experimental areas, only the main lines and branches of development.)" In Ken's original e-mail the vote required three other committers and not specifically PMC members. Here is the original e-mail. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200605.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] It is my understanding that the an RTC request needs 3 other committers to +1 it and does not require the other +1's to be PMC members. Hiram Chirino wrote: Whoa! I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC member looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes. Imagine how long it would take if we had to get 3 PMC +1! I think we need to clear this up ASAP! On 7/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AFAIK, it has never changed from having three binding +1 votes from the PMC, which is why there is an issue with a bottleneck processing RTCs due to the size of the PMC. It may not have been clearly communicated that that is how RTC works. See Ken's comment in http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg24899.html Also see http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html where it says "Only votes by PMC members are considered binding on code-modification issues". Made change below... John Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > I don't understand how things changed from an RTC needing three +1 > votes from other committers to three +1 votes from a PMC member. Did > I miss an email that got sent out from the PMC? > > > Regards, > Alan > > John Sisson wrote: >> One of the issues I see with the current process we have for changes >> under RTC is that it is hard to keep track of what patches are >> pending RTC. >> >> Ken suggested that we reintroduce the STATUS file as a way of keeping >> track of the status of patches ( >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg24780.html ). >> On the same thread, Dain suggested introducing a "review-required" >> status in JIRA ( >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg25122.html ) >> and is the method of tracking work that I prefer. >> >> PROPOSAL >> >> 1. Add a "review-required" and "review-complete" statuses to JIRA. I >> thought having two statuses might allow a cleaner workflow in JIRA, >> but would be interested in hearing others opinions. >> >> 2. To make it easy for those reviewing and voting on the patches >> (there could end up being a number of revisions of the patch before >> it is accepted) the file names of the patches attached to the JIRA >> should be prefixed with the JIRA issue identifier followed by an >> optional text followed by a mandatory patch version number (starting >> at 1). >> Example patch names: >> >>GERONIMO-1234-FixNPE-v1 >>GERONIMO-1234-FixNPE-v2 (second attempt at patch) >>GERONIMO-3421-v1 >> >> 2.1 This status should only be set by a committer (can we can get >> JIRA to enforce this?) when they have tested the patch attached to >> the JIRA and believe it is ready for review. 2.2 The JIRA should >> contain all information about the patch. If the changes were >> previously discussed on the dev list prior to the JIRA being created, >> a summary of the discussions should be moved into the JIRA so that >> those reviewing the patch have all the information in one place. It >> would also be preferable to add links to the original discussions on >> the dev list archives. The way we document changes may be subject >> to change (e.g. detailed documentation placed in a linked JIRA) based >> upon the outcome of the discussions in the thread "[DISCUSS] Tracking >> documentation tasks in JIRA ( was Re: [RTC] Clarification please from >> the PMC )" >> >> 2.3 Each PMC member who reviews the patch attached to the JIRA must >> do the following: >> * Add a JIRA comment containing the file name of the patch they >> reviewed. This is so there is no confusion if there ends up being >> multiple revisions of the patch when collating votes. >>* In the JIRA comment add the results of their review (e.g. >> comments or a vote). If a PMC member vetos the patch, they must >> include a technical justification in their JIRA comments. I propose >> that when there is a veto that we leave the status as >> "review-required", as others may still want to vote and so tha
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
On Jul 2, 2006, at 12:43 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: On 7/2/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Whoa! I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC member looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes. Imagine how long it would take if we had to get 3 PMC +1! I think we need to clear this up ASAP! It's been cleared up for some time, imho. We can do two things to work it out in a gentle manner: 1/ Be more active and describe the change so that not only are developers encouraged to test it out or even PMCers. Why is it that only committers and PMCers vote? Is the description of the change not easy to understand enough? I wonder what makes them unattractive for lurkers? 2/ Be more active and gain a PMC nomination so the number of PMCers increases. 3/ Be more active if you are a PMC member. And, yes, I agree with all three and also concur that as everyone has limited bandwidth to dedicate to all three. You're right, we shouldn't just do what is easiest for us. -David They seem to be obvious things, but in RTC mode we operate nothing's as obvious as it was. We all learn RTC and with no other projects operating in RTC we're pioneers. With a limited bandwidth I've got I'm quite certain I'll work on patches that are easy to grasp and have extensive documentation behind them. Of course, the more talk about it in the dev mailing list the better as it will spur my interest in testing. Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
Sadly, I think RTC is shifting Geronimo from being a meritocracy to being a bureaucracy. I completely agree with this statement. And only things get done if you have friends in the PMC. I've seen several folks say RTC "Has been as success", and while yes, it has increased communicatio, If you look back and try to compare what's been committed to SVN against what has passed in RTC with 3 PMC votes I'm sure you'll be hard pressed to find alot of examples of "success". And this too. I think RTC would be fine IF current implementation were slightly tweaked to only require: 3 1+ from committers saying, yeah I think that patch is a good idea. Notice the requirement for testing the patch is gone. The requirement or PMC member is gone. This would still generate all the discussion that we are seeing on the lists, but now you at least have CHANCE of moving forward with a change. And I completely agree with this too. --jason
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
Jacek Laskowski wrote: On 7/2/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Whoa! I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC member looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes. Imagine how long it would take if we had to get 3 PMC +1! I think we need to clear this up ASAP! It's been cleared up for some time, imho. We can do two things to work it out in a gentle manner: I disagree that it has been cleared up for some time. The fact that only PMC members votes count is certainly new news to me. I've already committed one back of changes improperly, based on receiving 4 +1 votes that apparantly don't count. I've got 2 more [RTC] reviews pending where 2 people have taken the time to test and vote on my patches, only to now discover that their votes don't count, so they were essentially wasting their time. These patches have been sitting in [RTC] for 10 days now, I've only seen activity from 1 PMC member so far at looking at these. 1/ Be more active and describe the change so that not only are developers encouraged to test it out or even PMCers. Why is it that only committers and PMCers vote? Is the description of the change not easy to understand enough? I wonder what makes them unattractive for lurkers? 2/ Be more active and gain a PMC nomination so the number of PMCers increases. And that sounds like a path to do nothing but spending your time testing and voting on others patches, and not getting to spend any time working on stuff that interests you. They seem to be obvious things, but in RTC mode we operate nothing's as obvious as it was. We all learn RTC and with no other projects operating in RTC we're pioneers. With a limited bandwidth I've got I'm quite certain I'll work on patches that are easy to grasp and have extensive documentation behind them. Of course, the more talk about it in the dev mailing list the better as it will spur my interest in testing. Jacek
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
Jacek Laskowski wrote: 1/ Be more active and describe the change so that not only are developers encouraged to test it out or even PMCers. Why is it that only committers and PMCers vote? Is the description of the change not easy to understand enough? I wonder what makes them unattractive for lurkers? This is an interesting question that I've been mulling over for some time. I think that it's due, in no small part, to the tradition of tallying what votes are binding and what votes are not. Some projects don't even bother to tally non-binding votes. I, myself, use to vote on a few projects and got discouraged when my vote was publicly tallied as "not mattering"; I now don't bother. During my short tenor of a few years here at ASF as a committer and PMC member of many projects, I have never seen a vote tallied where it was necessary to point out the votes that "mattered". This was due to the fact that a consensus was usually formed by discussion before the vote took place. I think that as a rule, we shouldn't bother to delineate voting classes unless it was necessary to break an impasse. Regards, Alan
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
Hi Jacek,On 7/2/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/2/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Whoa!>> I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I> committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC member > looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes. Imagine> how long it would take if we had to get 3 PMC +1! I think we need to clear> this up ASAP!It's been cleared up for some time, imho. We can do two things to work it out in a gentle manner:1/ Be more active and describe the change so that not only aredevelopers encouraged to test it out or even PMCers. Why is it thatonly committers and PMCers vote? Is the description of the change not easy to understand enough? I wonder what makes them unattractive forlurkers?If you want to review the mail thread that I started a while back, you'll see that it was a simple migration of code from ActiveMQ to Geronimo. I posted multiple times to garner support. Sadly, I think RTC is shifting Geronimo from being a meritocracy to being a bureaucracy. And only things get done if you have friends in the PMC. I've seen several folks say RTC "Has been as success", and while yes, it has increased communicatio, If you look back and try to compare what's been committed to SVN against what has passed in RTC with 3 PMC votes I'm sure you'll be hard pressed to find alot of examples of "success". 2/ Be more active and gain a PMC nomination so the number of PMCers increases. They seem to be obvious things, but in RTC mode we operate nothing'sas obvious as it was. We all learn RTC and with no other projectsSince I previously was on the PMC due to starting Geronimo and actively work on it and getting it past the CTS testing, excuse me if I think I have all ready have shown this project that I'm a responsible community member. Unfortunately, I don't have 8 hours a day to devote to Geronimo anymore but I don't think that should be held against any PMCer. operating in RTC we're pioneers. With a limited bandwidth I've got I'm quite certain I'll work on patches that are easy to grasp and haveextensive documentation behind them. Of course, the more talk about itin the dev mailing list the better as it will spur my interest intesting. I know you would never think something like this, but I could see how "spurring interest" could rapidly degenerate to hiring 3 PMC folks on consulting time.I think RTC would be fine IF current implementation were slightly tweaked to only require: 3 1+ from committers saying, yeah I think that patch is a good idea. Notice the requirement for testing the patch is gone. The requirement or PMC member is gone. This would still generate all the discussion that we are seeing on the lists, but now you at least have CHANCE of moving forward with a change. Jacek--Jacek Laskowskihttp://www.laskowski.net.pl -- Regards,HiramBlog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
On 7/2/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Whoa! I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC member looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes. Imagine how long it would take if we had to get 3 PMC +1! I think we need to clear this up ASAP! It's been cleared up for some time, imho. We can do two things to work it out in a gentle manner: 1/ Be more active and describe the change so that not only are developers encouraged to test it out or even PMCers. Why is it that only committers and PMCers vote? Is the description of the change not easy to understand enough? I wonder what makes them unattractive for lurkers? 2/ Be more active and gain a PMC nomination so the number of PMCers increases. They seem to be obvious things, but in RTC mode we operate nothing's as obvious as it was. We all learn RTC and with no other projects operating in RTC we're pioneers. With a limited bandwidth I've got I'm quite certain I'll work on patches that are easy to grasp and have extensive documentation behind them. Of course, the more talk about it in the dev mailing list the better as it will spur my interest in testing. Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
On 7/2/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If the PMC interpretation stands, does that mean the only privileges of a committer who's not on the PMC are to commit bug fixes? Yes. That's why I and other think it's so painful and *may* slow down development, but at the same increase mailing list communication thus increase overall understanding of Geronimo. Aaron Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: Need clarification on RTC... Yet again... was: [Proposal] Tracking the status of patches under RTC
If the PMC interpretation stands, does that mean the only privileges of a committer who's not on the PMC are to commit bug fixes? Thanks, Aaron On 7/2/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Whoa! I think we have been operation under a different assumption. I know I committed a patch when 1 got 3 committer +1s... And not even 1 PMC member looked at it. And that took over a week to garner enough votes. Imagine how long it would take if we had to get 3 PMC +1! I think we need to clear this up ASAP! On 7/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > AFAIK, it has never changed from having three binding +1 votes from the > PMC, which is why there is an issue with a bottleneck processing RTCs > due to the size of the PMC. > > It may not have been clearly communicated that that is how RTC works. > > See Ken's comment in > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg24899.html > > Also see http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html where it says > "Only votes by PMC members are considered binding on code-modification > issues". > > Made change below... > > John > > Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > I don't understand how things changed from an RTC needing three +1 > > votes from other committers to three +1 votes from a PMC member. Did > > I miss an email that got sent out from the PMC? > > > > > > Regards, > > Alan > > > > John Sisson wrote: > >> One of the issues I see with the current process we have for changes > >> under RTC is that it is hard to keep track of what patches are > >> pending RTC. > >> > >> Ken suggested that we reintroduce the STATUS file as a way of keeping > >> track of the status of patches ( > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg24780.html ). > >> On the same thread, Dain suggested introducing a "review-required" > >> status in JIRA ( > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg25122.html ) > >> and is the method of tracking work that I prefer. > >> > >> PROPOSAL > >> > >> 1. Add a "review-required" and "review-complete" statuses to JIRA. I > >> thought having two statuses might allow a cleaner workflow in JIRA, > >> but would be interested in hearing others opinions. > >> > >> 2. To make it easy for those reviewing and voting on the patches > >> (there could end up being a number of revisions of the patch before > >> it is accepted) the file names of the patches attached to the JIRA > >> should be prefixed with the JIRA issue identifier followed by an > >> optional text followed by a mandatory patch version number (starting > >> at 1). > >> Example patch names: > >> > >>GERONIMO-1234-FixNPE-v1 > >>GERONIMO-1234-FixNPE-v2 (second attempt at patch) > >>GERONIMO-3421-v1 > >> > >> 2.1 This status should only be set by a committer (can we can get > >> JIRA to enforce this?) when they have tested the patch attached to > >> the JIRA and believe it is ready for review. 2.2 The JIRA should > >> contain all information about the patch. If the changes were > >> previously discussed on the dev list prior to the JIRA being created, > >> a summary of the discussions should be moved into the JIRA so that > >> those reviewing the patch have all the information in one place. It > >> would also be preferable to add links to the original discussions on > >> the dev list archives. The way we document changes may be subject > >> to change (e.g. detailed documentation placed in a linked JIRA) based > >> upon the outcome of the discussions in the thread "[DISCUSS] Tracking > >> documentation tasks in JIRA ( was Re: [RTC] Clarification please from > >> the PMC )" > >> > >> 2.3 Each PMC member who reviews the patch attached to the JIRA must > >> do the following: > >> * Add a JIRA comment containing the file name of the patch they > >> reviewed. This is so there is no confusion if there ends up being > >> multiple revisions of the patch when collating votes. > >>* In the JIRA comment add the results of their review (e.g. > >> comments or a vote). If a PMC member vetos the patch, they must > >> include a technical justification in their JIRA comments. I propose > >> that when there is a veto that we leave the status as > >> "review-required", as others may still want to vote and so that the > >> patch remains getting daily visibility in the "JIRAs Pending Review" > >> daily email (proposed below). The committer can then re-submit > >> another patch (where the patch filename has the version number bumped > >> up) > A committer could veto, but it wouldn't be binding, so the above > paragraph should probably be changed to: > > * In the JIRA comment add the results of their review ( e.g. comments or > a vote). If a committer vetos the patch (note that only PMC votes are > binding), they must include a technical justification in their JIRA > comments. I propose that when there is a veto that we leave the status > as "review-required", as others may still want to vote and so that the > patch remains getting daily visibil
