I second the RTC model for Chukwa; I think the group of committers is small enough that RTC will still be quite agile.
Jiaqi On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Jerome Boulon <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >
