qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rajith Attapattu <rajit...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: M4 post-release process review
Date Tue, 03 Feb 2009 02:25:35 GMT
Agree that Qpid as a project needs to pay more attention to licensing
issues.
I had to update a ton of files for the ASF header across all languages and
it wasn't fun at all :)
The addition of a GPL library was a honest mistake and should have been
caught during the review process.

I also agree that we need to get better at maintaining the JIRA's properly
and updating them in a timely manner.
I have been guilty of this in the past and is making an effort to keep my
JIRA list upto date.

The Java patch review has IMO improved compared to previous iterations. I
got very good feedback for most of my patches.
However I agree that certain areas had large code drops without much review,
even when patches were posted and emails sent requesting review.

Regards,

Rajith

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com> wrote:

>
>  I'm personally more concerned about points 8 and 9 though. The Java
>> patch review process is clearly a bit hit and miss.
>>
>>
>>
>
> We caught 9 which is key. What concerns you about nine? I saw it as an
> honest error that
> was corrected as soon as it was spotted.
>
> Carl.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Regards,

Rajith Attapattu
Red Hat
http://rajith.2rlabs.com/

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message