I like the "commit then review" approach much better. When we add samples into trunk, we have the responsibility to keep them working (in the right way).
Thanks, Raymond ________________________________________________________________ Raymond Feng rf...@apache.org Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com ________________________________________________________________ On Apr 4, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Simon Nash wrote: > ant elder wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Simon Nash <n...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Also in [1], I said that a new sample that doesn't yet meet the mandatory >>> release requirements should go in unreleased/ initially. AFAICT, the store >>> sample does meet the mandatory release requirements, so I'm not sure why >>> it was moved to unreleased/. >>> >> Because without asking first there is no way of know if there is >> consensus with everyone to include something in trunk. I give up on >> this new approach to the samples, it is sucking away way to much time. >> Please from now on lets go back to trunk/samples working just the same >> as any other part of tuscany svn. >> ...ant > I think the process should work the other way round, i.e., that if > a sample is committed to trunk and it doesn't meet the mandatory > requirements (which we can discuss and hopefully agree), then it should > be moved to unreleased/ until it does meet the mandatory requirements. > Is this a workable approach? > > Simon >
