All the other feedback seems reasonable to me. Plus I actually don't know whether RTC can solve the problem or not. It's just a try. But I'd like to reply in below statements specifically.
> Cos: a mechanical +1 != positive feedback. It is as good a no feedback at all. I actually don't agree with this point. There's no mechanical +1 in our community regardless of RTC or CTR. I think any committer in our community will at least viewed the patch and provide a responsible +1. The only thing makes the +1 to a buggy patch is just because of knowledge gap or human errors, which I in my opinion are completely acceptable. Speaking of knowledge gap, this sort of linked the story with my next reply... > Roman: With all of the above -- what problem is left for us to solve with RTC? One strong reason here posted by Olaf: > Olaf: I am miss the discussion a lot. With RTC all the committed stuffs have at least two person knowing that, although there's a nondeterministic proportion of "knowing". This serves exactly a way to sync up our knowledge. Isn't it? To sum up, reverting back to RTC is a proposal trying to increase discussions in the community. If there's a better way to do it. I'm not sticking to RTC at all. 2017-01-20 7:01 GMT+08:00 Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]>: > 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. >
