Hi,
Sorry for the confusion as I'm new to this situation. I meant to get the
code into SVN as a base for discussion. I chose the paticular branch simply
because I only need minor effort to get the code built.
I moved the code to my sandbox for now
(http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/sandbox/rfeng/ejb) and
removed it from the branch.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511566
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511567
I'll start another thread to discuss if and/or how we can accept the
contribution.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "ant elder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <general@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
On 2/25/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: rfeng
> Date: Fri Feb 23 22:26:55 2007
> New Revision: 511225
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511225
> Log:
> [sca-integration-branch] Add EJB reference binding (TUSCANY-1126)
-1
There has been no discussion at all about this contribution in the
community. We've had someone from a vendor attach code in JIRA, a co-
worker say they would review and "possibly check it into a sandbox"
and then this commit to a branch only the vendor's employees are
working on. Not one single mail to the dev list. This isn't community
development, it's a code dump.
Please take this out of SVN and talk to the community about it - you
might find people are interested in it.
Could one of our mentors/IPMCers comment on if this -1 comes with enough
of
a technical reason to make it a veto? If thats the case you need to revert
the commit now before anymore discussion Raymond.
Hopefully there will be discussion and development of the ejb binding on
the
ML in future, but the way its been done I don't think warrants it being
removed right now. As I understand it there has been a CCLA received by
Apache for the code. In the past there's been a lot of similar sized
function committed to Tuscany trunk with no discussion until afterwards,
and
this code didn't get put in the trunk. More discussion would be better but
I
think one reason people do it this way may be as its easier to talk about
things once there is actual code in SVN to refer to and try out. The
commit
was done late on Friday probably they're off for the weekend now, so how
about waiting to see if they start discussions about this contribution on
Monday.
...ant
PS, Rashmi, this looks really good to me and nicely written, i think it
would be a great addition to Tuscany. Hope you don't get put off by this
procedural debate and and can stick around to help develop Tuscany
further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
