Bernd Fondermann 2010-09-13, 19:58
Ariel Rabkin 2010-09-13, 20:14
Eric Yang 2010-09-13, 20:49
Bill Graham 2010-09-13, 20:50
Bernd Fondermann 2010-09-14, 10:17
Bill Graham 2010-09-14, 21:22
I would like to keep the review-then-commit (RTC) pattern.
This should theoretically prevent anyone from adding non-tested/non-valid code and since we have to pass the review step the code should be better.
Also, theoretically this should gave a trunk that is almost always good.
On 9/13/10 12:58 PM, "Bernd Fondermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I understand correctly, Chukwa is following the review-then-commit
(RTC) pattern: Before every commit, a patch gets posted to a JIRA and
only on positive feedback it is committed.
As far as I can see, this is inherited from Hadoop's policies.
However, most projects at the ASF apply commit-then-review (CTR). CTR
has the advantage of being more agile, requiring less work (creating
issue, patch file, attaching it, waiting for feedback etc.) while
providing full oversight:
Every commit is reviewed by other committers after it happened, can be
discussed, reverted, improved etc. as a 'work in progress'.
It is best practice in CTR-mode to selectively use RTC, e.g. for big
patches or for potentially delicate commits.
I think Chukwa would profit from changing to CTR, so I'd like to know
what you think about it.
Jiaqi Tan 2010-09-21, 05:12
William A. Rowe Jr. 2010-09-21, 05:55
Ariel Rabkin 2010-09-21, 20:50
William A. Rowe Jr. 2010-09-21, 21:38