> 2. As Ilya pointed out, min checklist criteria is required for both getting > into incubating space & then into stable space. This will ensure nothing is > missed and the quality is maintained. > 3. IMO its very important to decide when, what, why and who of moving the > code from incubating to stable space. This can be a grey area and process > should define that upfront. Last thing we want to do in have some code in > incubating but not moved to stable space for ages. > 4. We should also decide about the cases where some serious changes are > required in stable code, should we move it back to incubating and go > through the process again? > 5. Maybe we can go for Commit-Then-Review model for this incubating space. > Its important to keep in mind that we're enabling faster development at the > cost of probably more work in longer run. Hence suggesting CTR model > instead of RTC model. >
I'm -1 on this specific point: This proposal aims to lower the barrier for new contributors, not open a backdoor for committers. RTC helps with #2 above also > 6. We should also make it clear that though this is an incubating space, > there should not be any lax on unit testing of the operators. > +1 and as Bhupesh pointed out earlier, a contributor that wants to solve a real problem has an interest that the code actually works.
