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. /Jerome.
On 9/13/10 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
