Reviewing a pull request I saw that a lot of discussion is goin on there: https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/pull/7
conatining for example an important discussion point you raise: I have seen commons rdf as being for interoperability, not integration. Ie, > it provides for passing objects across a boundary into another > implementation, but doesn't require the other implementation to then agree > on any further integration past what is required for future message passing > operations to succeed. > These comments never showed up on our list, this is problematic because at apache "if its not on the list, it didn't happen". Cheers, Reto On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Peter Ansell <ansell.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Reto, > > If you prefer to post patches to Jira (or email) then feel free to do > so. Pull Requests on GitHub are just a smooth and fluid modern method > of reviewing patches that reduce the turnaround for comments and > acceptance of changes, which is a big deal for some contributors here. > > In terms of voting on each issue, that is not going to happen. If the > issue is large, we encourage discussion about it before merging, but > we are not going to vote on whether to accept a patch for issues. > > Cheers, > > Peter > > On 11 April 2015 at 21:47, Reto Gmür <r...@apache.org> wrote: > > So you are suggesting we are actually requiring committers to use GitHub? > > Not sure what the difference between "propose/(PR|JIRA)" and "(email|JIRA > > -> PR/review)+" is in Andy's proposal. > > > > Are the pull request automatically referenced in the Jira issues? Are > code > > commits already referenced (or do we have to ask Infra to enable this)? > > > > I think as our project is supposed to deliver little but high quality > code > > this would be a case for the RTC approach. My suggestion would have been > to > > have branches in git (typically one per issue) and then vote on merging > it > > into master. > > > > Cheers, > > Reto > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> +1 the pragmatic approach Andy suggested > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Peter Ansell <ansell.pe...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On 10 April 2015 at 03:49, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > > As a small project, I think we should be pragmatic: > >> > > > >> > > Things that are clearly fixes: > >> > > commit-then-review > >> > > Things that are localised changes: > >> > > propose/(PR|JIRA) -> timeout -> commit > >> > > Things that are major changes: > >> > > (email|JIRA -> PR/review)+ -> commit > >> > > > >> > > making sure that the GH plumbing is actually sending the emails to > dev@ > >> > > >> > > >> > +1 for pragmatic. We are a very small project, so minor changes can > >> > easily be reverted if they are not going to work, but if the change is > >> > large it should be discussed first. > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > > >> > Peter > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Sergio Fernández > >> Partner Technology Manager > >> Redlink GmbH > >> m: +43 6602747925 > >> e: sergio.fernan...@redlink.co > >> w: http://redlink.co > >> >
