Remy Maucherat wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
IMO, code talks, bullshit walks. And I've been on both sides
of the argument many times in many places.
Yeah right. So to summarize, we have 3 committers who are happy
campers (2 of them which do
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
IMO, code talks, bullshit walks. And I've been on both sides
of the argument many times in many places.
Yeah right. So to summarize, we have 3 committers who are happy
campers (2 of them which don't contribute much, as
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
IMO, code talks, bullshit walks. And I've been on both sides
of the argument many times in many places.
Yeah right. So to summarize, we have 3 committers who are happy
campers (2 of them which don't contribute much, as far as I know), and
the rest o
Paul McMahan wrote:
On Aug 20, 2007, at 3:43 AM, Henri Gomez wrote:
+0, could we see the pros and cons ?
One "con" of moving trunk to sandbox, at least from an ASF-wide
perspective, is that the annotation processing changes that Geronimo 2.0
relies on are currently only available in trunk.
On Aug 20, 2007, at 3:43 AM, Henri Gomez wrote:
+0, could we see the pros and cons ?
One "con" of moving trunk to sandbox, at least from an ASF-wide
perspective, is that the annotation processing changes that Geronimo
2.0 relies on are currently only available in trunk. The development
o
On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:43 AM, David Jencks wrote:
While it's more fun to watch from the sidelines, I'm afraid I'll
have to get involved here to point out that you are wrong about
this. trunk contains an entirely new and incompatible with 6.0.x
annotation processing framework which is in
On Aug 22, 2007, at 8:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Yeah right. So to summarize, we have 3 committers who are happy
campers
(2 of them which don't contribute much, as far as I know), and the
rest
of the committers are either do not care or are unhappy. Most also
wa
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Yeah right. So to summarize, we have 3 committers who are happy campers
> (2 of them which don't contribute much, as far as I know), and the rest
> of the committers are either do not care or are unhappy. Most also want
> a change in the development process, and as long as
On Aug 22, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
IMO, code talks, bullshit walks. And I've been on both sides
of the argument many times in many places.
Yeah right.
And what do you mean by that? What is "Yeah right" about
me claiming to at times being on the 'code t
Jim Jagielski wrote:
IMO, code talks, bullshit walks. And I've been on both sides
of the argument many times in many places.
Yeah right. So to summarize, we have 3 committers who are happy campers
(2 of them which don't contribute much, as far as I know), and the rest
of the committers are ei
On Aug 21, 2007, at 8:54 PM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hey,
On 8/21/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Beyond withdrawing the silly vote, asking for the code you veto to be
removed, and moving forward, don't you think you should hold a
vote to
make trunk R-T-C first?
The latte
Mark Thomas wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
Bill Barker wrote:
I'm so tired of this thread, so let's settle it once and for all. I'm
backing Remy's suggestion to send the current trunk to the sandbox:
[X] +1 Let's end the revolution
[ ] +0 What revolution?
[ ] -1 Viva the revolultion
Mark Thomas wrote:
> Bill Barker wrote:
>> I'm so tired of this thread, so let's settle it once and for all. I'm
>> backing Remy's suggestion to send the current trunk to the sandbox:
>> [X] +1 Let's end the revolution
>> [ ] +0 What revolution?
>> [ ] -1 Viva the revolultion
>
> This applies to
Remy Maucherat wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Development in "trunk" is not done properly at the moment.
Back up 1 step; define "proper", with pointers to the
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/ documents, if they exist.
Otherwise you are doing a good job of showing the e
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Development in "trunk" is not done properly at the moment.
Back up 1 step; define "proper", with pointers to the
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/ documents, if they exist.
Otherwise you are doing a good job of showing the entire vote is
really no
Hey,
On 8/21/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Beyond withdrawing the silly vote, asking for the code you veto to be
> removed, and moving forward, don't you think you should hold a vote to
> make trunk R-T-C first?
The latter is definitely a vote. (And I'd be -1 on it).
> i
Remy Maucherat wrote:
>
> Development in "trunk" is not done properly at the moment.
Back up 1 step; define "proper", with pointers to the
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/ documents, if they exist.
Otherwise you are doing a good job of showing the entire vote is
really nothing but ad hominem attack
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
for those not following the entire non existent revolution, here is the
veto that was being debated
Thanks, I have a question below...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: fhanik
Date: Tue May 29 15:23:36 2007
New Revision: 542678
URL:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
for those not following the entire non existent revolution, here is the
veto that was being debated
Yes, you ignored it, along with all subsequent objections, and continued
hacking. You also obviously do not consider this branch to be a
proposal, since otherwise
Bill Barker wrote:
I'm so tired of this thread, so let's settle it once and for all. I'm
backing Remy's suggestion to send the current trunk to the sandbox:
[X] +1 Let's end the revolution
[ ] +0 What revolution?
[ ] -1 Viva the revolultion
Development in "trunk" is not done properly at the m
I've been giving this a lot of thought, and I've come to the conclusion
that this is not a valid vote.
There is no technical justification for throwing away trunk, nor was
there a justification in Remy's veto.
I'm happy to pull out whatever Remy is vetoing, when I know exactly what
is being ve
Remy Maucherat wrote:
>
> Since the community is a bit small, it could be useful to precise that a
> single +1 (from the committer who proposes the commit) is enough for a
> commit to go through, rather than the usual 3 +1s.
That would be C-T-R, aye?
E.g. you are -1 to adopting R-T-C on any bran
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
> for those not following the entire non existent revolution, here is the
> veto that was being debated
Thanks, I have a question below...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Author: fhanik
>> Date: Tue May 29 15:23:36 2007
>> New Revision: 542678
>>
>> URL: http://svn.ap
for those not following the entire non existent revolution, here is the
veto that was being debated
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: fhanik
Date: Tue May 29 15:23:36 2007
New Revision: 542678
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=542678
Log:
setup default operation
Modified:
tomc
Boy, what an absurd thread...
jean-frederic clere wrote:
>
> I would also propose that we take an handling of releases similar to httpd.
> See http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/
I just want to make sure you aren't confusing the above ^^^
with below vvv
> branches contains the product
Mark Thomas wrote:
trunk contains the place where the commmun developement and the new
agreed features and bugs fixes are going.
To move something from the "experimental developpement branches" to
trunk (or to a production branche) we vote it. (in a file named STATUS)
once accepted (no -1) the st
jean-frederic clere wrote:
> I would also propose that we take an handling of releases similar to httpd.
> See http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/
-1 for review-then-commit for all commits.
Commit-then-review has worked well for us and I see no reason to move
to the additional overhead a
Bill Barker wrote:
> I'm so tired of this thread, so let's settle it once and for all. I'm
> backing Remy's suggestion to send the current trunk to the sandbox:
> [X] +1 Let's end the revolution
> [ ] +0 What revolution?
> [ ] -1 Viva the revolultion
This applies to this proposal only. Other cha
On Aug 20, 2007, at 11:13 AM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
[X] +0 What revolution?
everything is backwards compatible, even Comet, if you take a
6.0.x comet app, it would work in trunk, there was just new
features added
Given the additional calls that were added,
Henri Gomez wrote:
And what about using a modular design 'à la http modules' ?
not sure what you mean, but if you are referring to the "6.x wishlist",
none of those items are implemented, and were brought up as proposals
for consensus.
no revolution here either
Filip
2007/8/20, Filip Hani
Hey,
On 8/20/07, Bill Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm so tired of this thread, so let's settle it once and for all. I'm
> backing Remy's suggestion to send the current trunk to the sandbox:
> [ ] +1 Let's end the revolution
> [ X ] +0 What revolution?
+0 on this specific proposal.
-1 on
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
[X] +0 What revolution?
everything is backwards compatible, even Comet, if you take a 6.0.x
comet app, it would work in trunk, there was just new features added
Given the additional calls that were added, it didn't look to me it was
compatible. Regardless, it's
And what about using a modular design 'à la http modules' ?
2007/8/20, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [X] +0 What revolution?
>
> everything is backwards compatible, even Comet, if you take a 6.0.x
> comet app, it would work in trunk, there was just new features added
> I think thi
[X] +0 What revolution?
everything is backwards compatible, even Comet, if you take a 6.0.x
comet app, it would work in trunk, there was just new features added
I think this whole thing is a big shame, there was no revolution going
on here. not a single thing in trunk is, and now, we are simply
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 20, 2007, at 5:38 AM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Since the community is a bit small, it could be useful to precise that
a single +1 (from the committer who proposes the commit) is enough for
a commit to go through, rather than the usual 3 +1s.
If the community is so sm
On Aug 20, 2007, at 5:38 AM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Since the community is a bit small, it could be useful to precise
that a single +1 (from the committer who proposes the commit) is
enough for a commit to go through, rather than the usual 3 +1s.
If the community is so small as to not b
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Comments?
Since the community is a bit small, it could be useful to precise that a
single +1 (from the committer who proposes the commit) is enough for a
commit to go through, rather than the usual 3 +1s.
Well my idea was to force two other committers to review a pro
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> jean-frederic clere wrote:
>> Bill Barker wrote:
>>> I'm so tired of this thread, so let's settle it once and for all.
>>> I'm backing Remy's suggestion to send the current trunk to the sandbox:
>>> [X] +1 Let's end the revolution
>>
>> I would also propose that we take an
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Bill Barker wrote:
I'm so tired of this thread, so let's settle it once and for all. I'm
backing Remy's suggestion to send the current trunk to the sandbox:
[X] +1 Let's end the revolution
I would also propose that we take an handling of releases similar to httpd.
+1
Good idea to get the httpd release handling, a big +1.
I'll be more confortable with more eyes (commiters) on a new piece of code
2007/8/20, jean-frederic clere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Bill Barker wrote:
> > I'm so tired of this thread, so let's settle it once and for all. I'm
> > backing Rem
Bill Barker wrote:
> I'm so tired of this thread, so let's settle it once and for all. I'm
> backing Remy's suggestion to send the current trunk to the sandbox:
> [X] +1 Let's end the revolution
I would also propose that we take an handling of releases similar to httpd.
See http://svn.apache.org
+0, could we see the pros and cons ?
2007/8/20, Bill Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm so tired of this thread, so let's settle it once and for all. I'm
> backing Remy's suggestion to send the current trunk to the sandbox:
> [ ] +1 Let's end the revolution
> [ ] +0 What revolution?
> [ ] -1 Viva
I'm so tired of this thread, so let's settle it once and for all. I'm
backing Remy's suggestion to send the current trunk to the sandbox:
[ ] +1 Let's end the revolution
[ ] +0 What revolution?
[ ] -1 Viva the revolultion
My vote is +1.
---
43 matches
Mail list logo
