On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 01:43PM, Evans Ye wrote: >> > 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. > > Let me turn this around: under CTR if one is pro-actively seeking for feedback > but no one replies, the code could still be committed. Under RTC no one is > obliged to provide a feedback to a committer; but in this case the patch is > stuck and can not be committed. And still no one fills guilty anyone, because > it is no one fault (aka tragedy of the commons).
I don't really have a pony in this race, but I tend to agree with Cos on this one. Evans -- as you said -- it is about human psychology, but that's exactly why I don't think I have a clear understanding of why RTC provides a better setup. After all -- we're all committers, so there's no policy that would prevent us from a physical act of git push'ing. Its all about self control. And from that standpoint we can have self-imposed RTC today. Suppose you decide that RTC is better for you -- well then just make it a habit to ask for review on this list before every single commit you do. See how it works out for you and either keep doing it or, perhaps, start using your discretion of not asking when you feel really confident. This leaves disruptive pushers. Honestly, I haven't seen too much of that going in so perhaps I don't appreciate the full scope of the problem -- but it seems to me that RTC won't solve it either. With all of the above -- what problem is left for us to solve with RTC? Thanks, Roman.
