I do not believe that your suggestion to have the final voter commit
patches will improve collaboration. I see that by adding another
layer of process only adds to the chances that the overall process
will fail... and IMO taking too long is a failure.
I am open to ideas about how to improve how we work with RTC, but I
don't see that your suggestion would be beneficial enough to warrant
the additional overhead to manage the process.
--jason
On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:00 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 7/7/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-1 to this and any other way ways to slow down progress.
We need to find more effective ways to work with RTC, not more ways
to put up road blocks.
-1 requires more than just a thought or doubt. I don't see how it
could slow down a process more than it is now? What's wrong with it? I
see only positives no negatives wrt the 'branch' plan. Quoting your
words (slightly changed): our committer base is too low to compete in
the market and any way to improve it is worth to consider.
To be honest, I'm going to -1 any other change that doesn't apply
gently and can be tested on a fresh, clean local Geronimo sources
copy. It will cost us more time to cut better changes and me to help
with their preparation and testing, but will do it if necessary - in
the name of improving our collaboration.
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
