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 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... > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- Apache Maven - http://maven.apache.org "Better Builds with Maven" book - http://library.mergere.com/
