Hello, After working on Log4j with PRs, I have changed my opinion on CTR/RTC in this case. Previously, I would have said keep CTR. However, I worked with RTC using PRs, and my experiences were not bad. I was a bit lost with the comments on the PR, but I figured it out somehow. I think GitHub is not really fantastic when it comes to commenting and reviewing, but it is better than searching for related commits in the commit history.
This alone would not justify CTR, but I think we have a mature project with a huge user base and also a history of an issue that caused the internet to stop. Considering how critical Log4j might be, I think it warrants asking for reviews before we actually change something. I don't know if all repositories mentioned need this, but log4j 2.x is worth being more careful. Kotlin and Scale - probably, just because we use it on Log4j. Transform - no idea Tools - if it's just tooling, maybe it's not worth it .NET - the .NET devs should decide on that Generally speaking, the ones who do most of the work (aka reviews) should also have a heavyweight in their votes. I am a bit concerned about low-profile commits like typos. On the other hand, if you fix 20 or 30 typos, then it might be worth having them combined in one PR. Let's give it a try and see where it leads us. We can always change it back if we see this is no good. Given the two most active people here already use RTC we maybe should just follow the lead +1 Cheers On Tue, Sep 17, 2024, at 10:30, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote: > Hi all, > > Inspired by the way the Log4Net team works, I would like to propose a > switch from our CTR policy to RTC: > > * every change to the main branches should go through a pull request, > * pull requests can be merged if they have 1 positive review and no > requested changes. To allow everyone to look at the PR, let's not > merge them before at least 24 hours have passed. > * if a pull request does not receive any review in 72 hours, as a last > resort we merge them without a review. > > I would like to apply this policy to our most active repos: > > * l-log4j2 > * l-log4j-kotlin > * l-log4j-scala > * l-log4j-transform > * l-log4j-tools > * l-log4net > > I am NOT proposing this change to the equally active l-log4cxx > repository, since the Log4cxx team has an established workflow that > does not use formal reviews. > > I would prefer to explicitly add a branch protection rule that > requires reviews. If a PR is not reviewed within 72 hours, please ping > the Slack channel so someone can review it. > > What do you think? > > Piotr
