I think that folks do review after commits... I know I peek at all
change logs and see if anything looks fishy.
--jason
On Aug 22, 2006, at 7:33 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
From the peanut gallery...
On 23/08/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd be more inclined to talk about what we want to apply it to and
how.
That said, I've stared at this email for an hour after writing the
above sentence and am still not sure what the answer would be....
Part of me wouldn't mind seeing an RTC process where
- it's not enforced. meaning we could pull the plug whenever we
like
So, that would be RTC by lazy consensus? After 72 hours it gets
committed anyway if there are no -1's?
- your +1 could simply mean you've reviewed it to your satisfaction
(whatever that means for you) and agree with the change.
I think I'd ask people to just +0 or say that to be clear so you know
how well tested it was. You don't want to be asking what their +1
really meant.
Tempted to also throw in "three +1s from any committer other than the
proposer are sufficient", but if that's going to be a topic of
debate, I'd rather see it put on hold and the first two items
implemented first.
The first one sort of allows this. I think anything that encourages
more committers to review is a good thing.
So, are you saying you don't think Geronimo is ready for CTR yet?
One thing that struck me is that if there was trouble getting reviews
done under RTC then its likely to be that CTR dissolves to just C :)
So perhaps some work on building a culture of review (including
ensuring enough committers have an eye on each area of the code) is
still helpful, with steps such as those you've highlighted. I know I
feel somewhat reassured that when I do something dumb in Maven that
someone always seems to find it.
Just my 2c.
Cheers,
Brett
