On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it could be tough to get Cassandra through a graduation vote > on general@ while working with RTC. I know there are some other > projects that use RTC, but its usually only for stable or release > branches isn't it? > > Things seem to be going well these days, what are the issues with > trying CTR now for a while?
So I've thought about this a lot since Paul's brief objection. Historically I have been a huge non-fan of RTC. It can slow things down significantly with the overhead of switching between patchsets in various stages of review. BUT. Git-svn makes that go away almost entirely. I am never blocking for code to be reviewed; I just go code something else in the meantime. I branch per-ticket so revisiting to incorporate feedback or commit is trivial. I don't feel like I am wasting time fighting the tools like I used to with svn. (Especially with http://github.com/eevans/git-jira-attacher/.) All the other committers have switched to git-svn as well. I do think there should be room for individual discretion here. If you have a trivial change, just commit it and be done. But in general, I think the extra care of RTC is usually worth it for us. I see reviews becoming a lot more perfunctory / not happening at all if we just commit first. (Just about all my experience has been in CTR projects, both closed and OSS. This isn't just a theoretical concern, DESPITE the best of intentions that "we'll do reviews, promise.") So I would argue that RTC is working for us, making sure reviews actually happen, while git makes it mostly stay out of our way. I _would_ be in favor of being less dogmatic about it (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-528 from earlier today is a fine example) but in general I prefer not fixing what ain't broke. -Jonathan
