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
Jerome Boulon 2010-09-21, 05:00
Jiaqi Tan 2010-09-21, 05:12
William A. Rowe Jr. 2010-09-21, 05:55
My sense is that there's virtually never feedback on patches prior to commit.
There is, however, often feedback on design choices before the patch is posted.
I assume even with commit-then-review there would still be review for
major change proposals before implementation.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:55 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/13/2010 2:58 PM, Bernd Fondermann 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.
> The only useful question is what % of the jira tickets are rejected, or
> corrected, prior to commit? If this number is very low, I'd suggest that
> waiting for jira feedback before committing is a waste. As this number
> grows larger, the amount of work undone in trunk becomes more onerous
> than the review of open jira tickets.
Ari Rabkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
UC Berkeley Computer Science Department
William A. Rowe Jr. 2010-09-21, 21:38