On Sep 11, 2006, at 9:27 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:17 PM, David Blevins wrote:
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
And to clarify, my proposal was actual for CTR w/optional RTC with
Lazy Consensus, where we as a community agree RTC with Lazy
Consensus is encouraged in the following situations:
On Aug 23, 2006, at 1:14 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I'm inclined to say "at your discretion" where the following are
encouraged:
- Significant new functionality
- Significant changes
- Patches from Contributors
- Borderline "fixes" to a stable branch
This is still my preferred verbiage.
Since this is a VOTE thread I think the vote needs to be
unqualified. So the +1 is for 3 as stated or it should be a -1
with qualifications. Otherwise the vote gets very hard to tally.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. My vote is for 3 without qualifications.
Was simply adding (unsuccessfully) that my proposal didn't make it
into the list of options.
-David
3. CTR with documentation guidelines
Geronimo follows a Commit-Then-Review model. There should be an
emphasis of community communication. Community-based policing
and persuasion will be used to remedy any problem areas.
Guidelines are not strict dogma -- common sense should prevail.
Community communication is the key, not a process. General
guidelines are:
* Non-trivial changes (and certainly potentially controversial
changes) should be announced on the dev list. This announcement
should be well in advance of the change being committed. The
community should be given the opportunity to understand and
discuss the proposal.
* Concurrent with the commit of a significant change, the
committer should document the change on the dev list. You should
describe what you are doing, describe why you are doing it, and
provide an overview of how you implemented it.
--kevan
Matt Hogstrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
