I like the current model where commit is allowed for silent consent. I usually leave my patches open for review for extensive period of time, and commit if no response. For large change, I do follow review then commit to ensure that I don't break other people's usage pattern. This has worked for Chukwa because there is no full time developer. I think it is a value added if there are full time developer that like to be more agile. I am open to CTR.
Regards, Eric On 9/13/10 1:14 PM, "Ariel Rabkin" <[email protected]> wrote: Our methodology is actually some hybrid; something like "wait for potential review", then commit. Usually I'll commit after a few days if nobody objected or commented. (I try to say explicitly when I'll time out waiting for comments.) And most of the patch review is fairly cursory. I agree that the full rigor of RTC is probably unnecessary. I do like it, however, for bigger changes, particularly those that alter the architecture or user visible feature set. Is it reasonable to say "for bugs, CTR is fine, and only file a JIRA and wait for review if it's going to break something"? --Ari On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Bernd Fondermann <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > 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. > > Thanks, > > Bernd > -- Ari Rabkin [email protected] UC Berkeley Computer Science Department
