On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:22 PM, RJ Nowling <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with a lot that has been said here. Primarily, that I see RTC as a > way to increase committer involvement. If we know we need to be actually > watching for commits to review, we are more likely to pay attention to the > project and engage in discussion. I think that more involvement means a > more cohesive community. > > The biggest problem with RTC is that it holds up work by the most active > committers, who are the life blood of the project. CTR makes it easier for > the most active committers to focus on their work of moving the project > forward. That part can't be overlooked. > > However, if there are other ways to encourage community participation, then > I would propose trying those before trying to revert to RTC.
So far the biggest rationale I can relate to is the one articulated by Olaf -- if the project doesn't have RTC than important stuff can flow by that not a lot of folks realize how to use/support (lets assume that the implementation is correct and bug free so that the only purpose of a peer review would be for others to actually know what's getting where). So what do you folks think about flipping a problem on its head and asking the committers still working under the CTR model to always announce any kind of major (or even mid-size things on dev@ ? Would this be too weak of a guarantee? Thanks, Roman.
