Why not CTR into a branch 

And RTC in jira that promotes the branch to master?

That way process can continue and those interested can delay promotion to 
master , without delaying other progress

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:08 PM, RJ Nowling <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Evans.
> 
> I'll admit that I have been busy with other things (i.e. a new job), hence
> part of my silence in the BigTop community.  However, I also agree that the
> required conversation around new commits made it easier to engage with
> others.
> 
> The reduced amount of conversation can also hurt new contributors.
> 
> I believe it is worth discussing returning to the RTC model.
> 
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:57 AM, Olaf Flebbe <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Evans,
>> 
>> thanks for picking up the discussion. I have a rather strong opinion
>> towards reverting back to RTC, too.
>> 
>> I am miss the discussion a lot.
>> 
>> Thanks
>>   Olaf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 15.01.2017 um 09:40 schrieb Evans Ye:
>>> 
>>> Hi Bigtopers,
>>> 
>>> A year has pasted since we adopted CTR(Commit then Review) model.
>>> I can see some draw back in this journey, hence I'd like to propose we
>>> revert the working model back to RTC(Review Then Commit).
>>> 
>>> Let me list down some known problems I can think of.
>>> Before I do so, you should know following are not pointing to someone
>>> particularly. And these may be bias opinions since I'm silencing for a
>>> long
>>> while in the community.
>>> 
>>> a). The community has less conversation because there's no +1 required.
>>> b). Sometimes Committers are working alone, left the contributors out side
>>> of the game.
>>> c). Communication is the core of the open source community. Without this
>>> it's not fun anymore contributing.
>>> 
>>> When we adopted CTR, we thought that there will be more time for
>>> Committers
>>> to review and interact with contributors, but turns out there's no time.
>>> Maybe we just simply need the guilty back to drive us  forward.
>>> 
>>> Any different voice here?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2015-11-25 4:03 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>:
>>> 
>>> With ten +1's; one 0's; and none -1's the [VOTE] has passed. Thanks
>>>> everyone
>>>> for casting yours.
>>>> 
>>>> I will go ahead and update the top-level README file to reflect on this.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>  Cos
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:34AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Using CTR for the Bigtop project has been discussed, experimented for a
>>>>> 
>>>> few
>>>> 
>>>>> months, and discussed again on this long thread [1] for alomost a year
>>>>> 
>>>> now. The
>>>> 
>>>>> consensus seems to be reached, but because this is a policy change I'd
>>>>> 
>>>> like to
>>>> 
>>>>> bring it up for the vote.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, please cast your for per the following ledger
>>>>> 
>>>>> [ ] +1, make the CTR policy permanent for the Bigtop project
>>>>> [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
>>>>> [ ] -1, do not make the CTR policy permanent for the Bigtop project
>>>>> 
>>>> because...
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours and will be closed on
>>>>> 
>>>> Tuesday, Nov
>>>> 
>>>>> 24 at noon PST.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1] http://is.gd/TgBovX
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>  Cos
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 

Reply via email to