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:dev@geronimo.apache.org > 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 > > >>>>> 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... > > >>>>>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
