[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
On 9/10/06, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a vote to determine the development process the Geronimo
community wishes to use for "trunk" development. If any modifications
are needed for a "branch" development process, then a separate vot
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
-dain
Keep the votes coming...
The vote has been active for 2 1/2 days. I'll plan on giving it 2
more days. Unless there are objections, I'll end the vote on Friday,
Sept 15 at 9 AM EDT.
--kevan
On Sep 10, 2006, at 9:23 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
This is a vote to determine the development proce
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
Jan
On Sep 12, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:26 AM, David Blevins wrote:
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 fo
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
Regards,
Alan
I hadn't really thought about this issue so here is my 2c.
The only potential issue I see is that I (and others) often see and
issue and reply to the e-mail generated from JIRA and do not
automatically go into JIRA to add the comments. So, those comments
are in the e-mail and are not in th
On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Geronimo follows a Review-Then-Commit (RTC) model. Patches for new
function are provided by developers for review and comment by their
peers. Feedback is conducted through JIRA comments.
- -1 on that last sentence. You don't hold dis
On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:26 AM, David Blevins wrote:
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.
I didn't mean to come across too strongly. I was noticing on this
vote a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> Understand your concerns about communication occurring on the mailing
> lists. I think these can be addressed in the proposals. I don't think
> they fundamentally change the nature of the proposals. Do you agree? If
> we're unc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sachin Patel wrote:
>
>> -1 on that last sentence. You don't hold discussions in JIRA..
>
> Why? This to me is the ideal place to append comments. If a contributer
> opened a JIRA and attached a patch, I'd expect comments on the patch to
> be appen
Ken,Understand your concerns about communication occurring on the mailing lists. I think these can be addressed in the proposals. I don't think they fundamentally change the nature of the proposals. Do you agree? If we're uncomfortable with the vote, as stands. I can respin...Finally, would prefer
Hi Ken,
General question: Why is it bad to hold a discussion in a JIRA since
the whole of the discussion is archived in the issues mailing list.
Seems like the JIRA is the ideal place to hold the discussion because
its archived and organized for all to follow. If the JIRA magically
or mys
On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:26 AM, David Blevins wrote:
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
On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-Hash: SHA1Kevan Miller wrote: 1. Relaxed RTCGeronimo follows a Review-Then-Commit (RTC) model. Patches for new function are provided by developers for review and comment by their peers. Feedback is cond
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> 1. Relaxed RTC
>
> Geronimo follows a Review-Then-Commit (RTC) model. Patches for new
> function are provided by developers for review and comment by their
> peers. Feedback is conducted through JIRA comments.
- -1 on t
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 en
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
I agree with Joe that we need to work hard at this for it to work and
should review its effectiveness in a few months.
Regards,
John
Joe Bohn wrote:
> [X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
We'll have to work extra hard to ensure that we hold each
What, no write ins?
I vote Donald Duck for president.
--jason
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 Consens
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, 20
On Sep 11, 2006, at 3:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
I'm worried that we will not maintain enough awareness of each
others work, and think we all need to be very vigilant. I agree
with Joe that we need to review how we are doing in a reasonable
amou
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
I concur with David.
Thanks
Anita
--- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
>
> I'm worried that we will not maintain enough awareness of each others
>
> work, and think we all need to be very vigil
+1 CTR with documentation guidelines
Thanks,
Gianny
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
I'm worried that we will not maintain enough awareness of each others
work, and think we all need to be very vigilant. I agree with Joe
that we need to review how we are doing in a reasonable amount of
time (2-3 months, less if there are obvious pr
+1 CTR with documentation guidelines
--jason
On Sep 10, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
This is a vote to determine the development process the Geronimo
community wishes to use for "trunk" development. If any
modifications are needed for a "branch" development process, then a
sep
My non-binding vote -
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
Cheers
Prasad
On 9/10/06, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a vote to determine the development process the Geronimo
community wishes to use for "trunk" development. If any modifications
are needed for a "branch" de
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>> This is a vote to determine the development process the Geronimo
>> community wishes to use for "trunk" development. If any modifications
>> are needed for a "branch" development process, then a separate vote
>> will be held.
>>
>>
> [ ] +1 Relaxed RTC
> [ ] +1 RTC with Lazy Consensus
> [X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
Cheers!
Hernan
Kevan Miller wrote:
This is a vote to determine the development process the Geronimo
community wishes to use for "trunk" development. If any modifications
are needed for a "branch"
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines -sachin
> [X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
We'll have to work extra hard to ensure that we hold each other to the
communication standard ... but I think if we are diligent then this
makes the most sense.
If the change is approved, I also recommend that we hold a public review
of how we feel
[ X ] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
[ ] +1 Relaxed RTC
[ ] +1 RTC with Lazy Consensus
[X ] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
TTFN,
-bd-
On 9/11/06, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ ] +1 Relaxed RTC[ ] +1 RTC with Lazy Consensus[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines-- Cheers,Guillaume Nodet
[X] +1 CTR with documentation guidelines
Jacek
On 9/11/06, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a vote to determine the development process the Geronimo
community wishes to use for "trunk" development. If any modifications
are needed for a "branch" development process, then a separa
[ +1] CTR with documentation guidelines
Kevan Miller wrote:
This is a vote to determine the development process the Geronimo
community wishes to use for "trunk" development. If any modifications
are needed for a "branch" development process, then a separate vote
will be held.
All votes are
[ +1] CTR with documentation guidelines
thanks,
-- dims
On 9/10/06, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a vote to determine the development process the Geronimo
community wishes to use for "trunk" development. If any modifications
are needed for a "branch" development process, then
This is a vote to determine the development process the Geronimo
community wishes to use for "trunk" development. If any modifications
are needed for a "branch" development process, then a separate vote
will be held.
All votes are important. This is a community-wide issue. Please let
yo
38 matches
Mail list logo
