CTR (Commit then Review) or RTC (Review then commit) is a process we need to finalize soon. Actually, most of the hawq code developed before follows CTR.
And I just found some other commits on the branch (that does not get 2 +1s, looks from Caleb :-) So IMO, to get this finalized might be a good practice for an apache voting process on Procedural item (http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html). Most committers do not know about the process. Cheers Lei On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Caleb Welton <[email protected]> wrote: > Konstantin, I don't think all the developers are aware of the differences > between CTR and RTC. Would you care to elaborate on the contribution > protocols? > > Thanks! > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I am the big advocate of CTR model and has been pushing it in a number of > > the > > projects before. However, for the very early ones like Hawq right now, > RTC > > might make more sense: it takes time to learn how to add new trusty > people > > to > > the community; also for new committers it helps to learn the code faster > by > > doing the mandatory reviews. But before you know it, I will be doing > rounds > > here pushing for CTR ;) > > > > Cos > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 03:11PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > just wanted to say what I said on HAWQ-7, but > > > since not all of us are watching that JIRA, I think > > > it would be useful to repeat it here. > > > > > > While there's nothing wrong with lazy consensus, > > > but initially I'd suggest staying with RTC model. > > > Thus +1 from somebody else should be explicitly > > > required. > > > > > > I don't think there's any disagreement, but I just > > > wanted to have it explicitly mentioned. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Roman. > > >
