> How many of us have asked for the review/feedback and when they did, the feedback wasn't provided?
This is more about psychology I think. For example, if a committer provided a patch and seeking for review. Since the committer do not highlighting anyone specifically, no one is responsible to review it. And anyhow the patch provider(committer) can just go ahead and commit it anyway according to CTR. So, no one feels guilty about blocking the progress. Therefore no one will review it. > How many tickets are in the JIRA, before the CTR policy was instituted, where the only comment is '+1' or 'LGTM'? Despite the comment is only +1 or LGTM, but it means a lot: 1) Getting positive feedback V.S. no feedback 2) Policy enforced status sync up V.S. I'm the only one who knew it 2017-01-18 2:39 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>: > so, > > let me get the presented facts straight: > 1 no matter what, under CTR or RTC _all_ contributors patches are > supposed to > be reviewed/discussed > 2 the CTR assumes that a responsible committer would proactively seek the > feedback of his peers if such is desired > 3 RTC, being a formal requirement to get a +1, is supposedly has an > effect on > engaging the committers into a wider discussion > > The #1 stands today and we are reviewing the external contributions (time > permits and all). How many of us have asked for the review/feedback and > when > they did, the feedback wasn't provided? How many tickets are in the JIRA, > before the CTR policy was instituted, where the only comment is '+1' or > 'LGTM'? > > So, how a format +1 (which as we know in the past oftentime lead to > non-working patches being committed) is an instrument to force committers > to > seek a feedback? > > Thanks in advance for any comments on this. > Cos > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:11AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > I don't think there's a workable halfway here. > > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Jay Vyas <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond > > Teller (via Peter Watts) >
