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?
No, more like "we as a project choose to do RTC of our own free will
and reserve the right to switch models or evolve it to a new model"
I think the fact that it will be a conscious choice as opposed to
being imposed is a significant difference.
But the lazy consensus "cut off" you mention is something to think
about.
- 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.
I'm fine with a +1 and an optional comment as to how it was
reviewed. I'm not as concerned about testing as I am about getting
people to see, understand, and *support* the changes.
I went to the extreme to build a cluster of computers to
automatically build, test, and tck certify all active Geronimo
branches 24x7, so I'm understandably less concerned about testing.
If someone breaks Geronimo, we'll know.
I just want to know that there are three people that have Read,
Understand, and Support the changes. This is significant in that
there are now 4 people who can support that code rather than just
one. Definitely my biggest concern by far.
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?
I don't know if I'm ready, no. Don't know how the other guys/gals
feel on if they're ready.
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 :)
We don't know that, really. What we do know is that we had a hard
time getting people to successfully apply and build all patches. But
we really don't have a good sense of how much we can review in the
sense of reading, understanding and agreeing to changes.
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.
That's what's in my head currently. Still waiting to hear what
others say.
-David
