-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Sisson wrote:
> I agree that "merging" shouldn't require another RTC. So merging of
> your m2 migration changes should be OK.
It's not necessarily as clear-cut as that. Any change
that's going into something provided as part of an
Apache relea
Haha.. Good point. But shouldn't those 4 people have reviewed the
oodles of lines of code in some 50+ files before +1'ing ?
Cheers
Prasad
On 6/1/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Umm, you guys do realise that there are already 4 people besides anita
that have said 'I don't think this
Umm, you guys do realise that there are already 4 people besides anita
that have said 'I don't think this requires RTC', who could just have
easily +1'd the RTC, right?
:)
Cheers,
Brett
On 02/06/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree that "merging" shouldn't require another RTC. S
I agree that "merging" shouldn't require another RTC. So merging of
your m2 migration changes should be OK.
We need to discuss the situation where merging a change from a branch to
trunk isn't a just a simple merge. For example, manual changes needed
to be made, e.g. changes to logic because
nch onto trunk and then go
> from there.
>
> --jason
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Prasad Kashyap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 08:47:48
> To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronim
2006 08:47:48
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Change to commit model for Apache Geronimo
Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She
had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy.
A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed in
Prasad,
I saw Anita's changes and started reviewing them. Unfortunately, they required more time than I had
at the moment and I won't get back to them until this weekend I suspect.
I think that since this is a merge of existing work should not necessarily require review since it
was existing
Anita has posted an [RTC] note with the patches to the devlist. She
had a question which I'm reposting it here for relevancy.
A lot of patches for the m2 migration were reviewed and committed into
the now dead-1.2 branch (old trunk). This work should now go into the
new 1.2 trunk. So the same pat
I'm one of the 3 Jeff was talking about. You'll see some JIRA's coming
in the next 24 hrs.
John Sisson wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote:
Matt,
I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one
of the 3)...
We have some nice patches coming up...
In the interests of being
Jeff Genender wrote:
Matt,
I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one
of the 3)...
We have some nice patches coming up...
In the interests of being open and improving communications in the
Geronimo community, could you please create some JIRAs for the work you
I've been pondering the question for a while now... Up to this point,
the primary individuals involved in the devtools subproject were
either g-users or developers outside the geronimo community and this
gives the illusion that there is a lack of interest in this
subproject which I do not t
I'd be happy to follow the dev of these 2 trees
On May 24, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and
working on DayTrader as well as DevTools. DayTrader we have been
getting additional activity so we are moving in the right
dir
Matt,
I know of 3 additional who are committed to helping with DT (me as one
of the 3)...
We have some nice patches coming up...
Dunno if that helps :/
Jeff
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and working
> on DayTrader as well as DevTools. Day
On May 23, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Ken, et al,
I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to
the Review then commit but I'd like to request some special
consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees
are external to mainline Geroni
I agree that it would be nice to get more committers looking and working on DayTrader as well as
DevTools. DayTrader we have been getting additional activity so we are moving in the right
direction. Since its a performance/benchmark sample its very different than the server and has a
different
A shot from the peanut gallery... :-)
Doesn't that seem like a problem? That maybe there should be more people
involved? That it shouldn't be "I'm off in my corner working on this
stuff. With nobody else. I dunno how to get my +1 votes."
IMO, part of Geronimo's issue is growing the community of d
I didn't see a response to this yet, so here ya go...
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:40:57PM -0700, David Jencks wrote:
>...
> This might be fine for simple uncontroversial patches such as this
> one, but there's a danger that this won't allow much time for review,
> especially for complicated cha
So, I think I did the first commit based on this policy, for
GERONIMO-2006, what I think is a completely uncontroversial patch,
and want to check out the timing factor. The time from my proposal
to patch to the third unequivocal +1 was 1hr 34 minutes. (I couldn't
tell if jsisson's +1 was
Ken, et al,
I'm not sure about other people's feelings regarding exceptions to the Review then commit but I'd
like to request some special consideration for DevTools and DayTrader. Both of these dev trees are
external to mainline Geronimo development and as such have a very limited set of peop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> Yes. I believe my answer was covered by your answer to Jan, "No, the
>> experimental areas continue as they have. Only the main lines and
>> branches of development are affected."
>>
>> I ha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Yes. I believe my answer was covered by your answer to Jan, "No, the
> experimental areas continue as they have. Only the main lines and
> branches of development are affected."
>
> I have an experimental branch in XBean t
Yes. I believe my answer was covered by your answer to Jan, "No, the
experimental areas continue as they have. Only the main lines and
branches of development are affected."
I have an experimental branch in XBean to introduce named constructor
args, and would commit more work to it (it's n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Just to clarify then. Daytrader has some final tweaks that are
> required to get it out for 1.1 (adjusting some packaging and such).
> I would consider this bug fixes and not rework (like adding a new
> feature). I assume this
Just to clarify then. Daytrader has some final tweaks that are required to get it out for 1.1
(adjusting some packaging and such). I would consider this bug fixes and not rework (like adding a
new feature). I assume this can happen without opening JIRAs and submitting patches for review.
S
On May 22, 2006, at 2:49 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>
> Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here
> openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our
> cooperation/openness?
Oh, and by all means this should be discussed. Among other
aspe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jan Bartel wrote:
>
> Do these rules also apply to stuff in the sandboxes?
No, the experimental areas continue as they have.
Only the main lines and branches of development are
affected.
- --
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>
> Shouldn't *your* decision be voted as well or at least discussed here
> openly, with the community to find out how they feel about our
> cooperation/openness? What message are we sending out if *you* step
> out and change th
Ken,
Do these rules also apply to stuff in the sandboxes?
Jan
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, t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jason Dillon wrote:
> What concerns about changes are you speaking of? I have so far seen
> no such concerns. Can you please elaborate.
By their very natures you wouldn't see them blatantly
stated. Concerns that have been brought to me, from
peop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Do revolution rules still apply or have they been suspended by fiat
> also?
Do you mean this?
http://incubator.apache.org/learn/rules-for-revolutionaries.html
- --
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sachin Patel wrote:
> Does this apply only to the "geronimo" code base or all subprojects
> as well? (XBean, DevTools, GBuild, etc...)?
It applies to all codebases which are part of the Geronimo
project. It does not apply to things like the Service
On 5/22/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
Do revolution rules still apply or have they been suspended by fiat
also?
-dain
On May 21, 2006, at 4:57 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 mo
Does this apply only to the "geronimo" code base or all subprojects
as well? (XBean, DevTools, GBuild, etc...)?
- sachin
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
What concerns about changes are you speaking of? I have so far seen
no such concerns. Can you please elaborate.
--jason
On May 21, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Due to concerns about how some changes have been getting
made i
-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
37 matches
Mail list logo
