I think David's comments on geronimo dev are spot on.
Begin forwarded message:
More thoughts on the "where" and "how" topic.
So far my thoughts on "how"; review to your satisfaction and +1, 72
hour cut off.
As far as "where" ....
I'm inclined to say "at your discretion" where the following are
encouraged:
- Significant new functionality
- Significant changes
- Patches from Contributors
- Borderline "fixes" to a stable branch
Whether or not it merits RTC would be at your discretion. It is to
your advantage in these situations because:
- "Significant new functionality" and "Significant changes": It's a
"Get out of jail free" card. Having more people understand your
code keeps you from spending all day on the user list. You do
support your code on the user list, right?
- "Patches from Contributors": Getting three votes for your patches
is not a bad way to, in time, get your three votes to be a
committer. Let's be clear, someone who commits all your patches
with no review from others on the project isn't doing you any
favors. It's in your interest to push to get your votes on every
patch.
- "Borderline 'fixes' to a stable branch": It's a given you will
think everything you want to put in a stable branch is important.
But, is it a fix or is it a new feature? If you think others may
disagree, you may want to put it up for review or you may find
yourself running the TCK all alone with no help.
Those are the advantages you stand to gain should you choose to use
RTC for any of the above situations. RTC is not the only way to
get the above benefits, so it is at your discretion whether or not
your situation merits it.
The only think I would change is the "how" section at the top. I
propose we follow this process:
To commit you need either 3 +1 (no -1s) from a committer or 72 hours
pass which ever happens first. I suggest you complain loudly if you
get no comments after 48 hours. As above a +1 means you have
"reviewed to you
-dain
