I'm personally neutral on this. I've had more experience with commit-then-review, but as Andrei pointed out, review-then-commit is more common in the Hadoop world.
I do think that at this point, when there are still fairly trivial changes to be made in terms of license headers, name changes, etc, that a hard and fast review-then-commit approach may be a little over the top. Some flexibility definitely makes sense for now. A. On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > for those of you new to apache comittership: > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview > > be sure the read through the committer guide as well: > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/committer.html > http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html > > Patrick > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Andrei Savu <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 for review then commit. I believe that most of the Apache (all?) do > this. > > > > -- Andrei Savu / andreisavu.ro > > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> So we should probably figure this out before we get any further. Are we > >> going to go with the review then commit model, or commit then review > (i.e., > >> ask permission or ask forgiveness)? Does anyone have any thoughts or > >> opinions on this? > >> > >> A. > >> > > >
