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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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... >>>>>> >> >> > >
