--- Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size > wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Aaron Mulder wrote: > >> On 6/17/06, Rodent of Unusual Size > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> If that means things languish for weeks or > months, then > >>> that's what it means. > >> > >> I don't think this is a good idea. > > > > RTC means tested quality, not assumed quality. If > you > > can't find people to test the quality of > something, it > > doesn't go in because the quality isn't assured. > > Ken, I think you have a faulty assumption that this > project cares > about what you call "tested quality". I for one am > fine with changes > that haven't been tested to the level you are > demanding from this > project. Personally, I'd like to see less perfect > software that > people want to use, other than perfect software that > is so > functionally incomplete that no one will uses it. > > If the community agrees with me, is there anything > we can do to > change your process or are we just stuck with it? > > -dain > Ken, I think you are changing the story about the purpose of RTC and I would like to know why. Your original edict was: ---------- On May 21, 2006, at 7:57 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 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. This means that all code changes that aren't for documentation or a specific bug fix need to be submitted as patches to the [email protected] list before getting committed. They can get applied after three other committers have voted +1 -- which in this mode means 'I have applied this patch and tested it and found it good' -- and no committers have vetoed it. I'm doing this to put to rest widespread concerns that development in Geronimo *isn't* being done entirely in the open. It's a drastic step, but those concerns have been around for a while and just don't seem to be going away. This also means that everyone needs to take interest in the changes being proposed for the code. Everyone knowing more about what everyone else is doing isn't a bad thing, and cooperating more to get them made isn't a bad thing either. - -- #ken P-)} 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 iQCVAwUBRHD+TZrNPMCpn3XdAQJ9FwQAlwe2L+SvgffPyPSvXi0GjefJBSN/DZtQ CPE/OPkJrC8QxKegPsu4wRmYJK0HkilWkojglPYSZkKEP94fOIEA+R3Nh+IByo+D q8LF12qpkvxI9RjsEMEqa3+awNt7uag0GT0WgMDEX3VMupPRq3X52V7XiSzATqmp rwb0h13AQlc= =LjSH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- Read it carefully. You do not mention the word "quality" once. You do express concern about "how some changes have been getting made in the codebase" and sa y IIUC that the purpose is to assure that we are communicating with each other about all changes. The closest to a mention of quality to my eyes is "They can get applied after three other committers have voted +1 -- which in this mode means 'I have applied this patch and tested it and found it good' -- and no committers have vetoed it." Tieing the phrase "found it good" to quality seems disingenuous to me. To me it primarily means, "this moves the project in a direction I approve of", not "this has few bugs" I'd also like to point out that insisting that anyone apply a patch and test it is actually likely to reduce quality over simply inspecting the patch carefully. I'm sure you are well aware of all the studies on code inspection that show that code inspection is the fastest cheapest and most reliable way to eliminate defects. Personally I trust ALL the geronimo committers to have verified that any patch they propose applies cleanly, keeps all unit tests passing, and results in a server that starts. I would much rather 3 other people look carefully at my code than all the committers verify that I'm not lying that the patch can be applied and doesn't break anything obvious, which is what your requirement boils down to. I repeat dain's question, is this process something the project gets to decide on or only you? My point of view at this time is that I think having 3 people review patches before or after they are applied is a good idea that will improve the community, but that requiring anyone to verify that a patch applies, builds, and runs is a waste of everyones time that will reduce overall software quality and reduce the number of people willing to contribute to geronimo. Can you please supply any evidence that your assertion that asking people to apply a patch, build the result, etc, provides better quality than spending the same time in code inspection? thanks david jencks
