On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Henry Saputra <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Hi MetaModel community, > > > > Per email from Matt, I'd like to formally start discussion about Review > > Then Commit (RTC) or Commit Then Review (CTR). > > > > I actually like to use review then commit (RTC) for big changes tat > > requires changes to major code flow and behavior. > > For small bug fixes we probably dont need code review or use common sense > > when needed. > > > > In general, I agree. The only thing I would change is that it depends on > where we are at in the development cycle. If we are nearing release, RTC > makes a ton of sense for any large change, but early in development it can > be a big barrier to moving quickly. > > Thoughts? > I would like to point out a different take on RTC, which is that it builds a stronger community. When every change must go through a committer review, it ensures that committers treat each other the same way as they would treat non-committers. In rare cases with CTR a committer may check in code that they would otherwise like changed if coming from a non-committer. Having RTC avoids such problems and provides a level playing field for the entire community, but of course comes at a great cost and potentially slows down overall development. Regards, Arvind Prabhakar > > > > > > All comments and suggestions are welcomed. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Henry > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Matt Franklin <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > This also brings up the question as to what type of community MetaModel > > > is/wants to be. Are we Review Then Commit (RTC) or Commit Then Review > > > (CTR)? There are positives and negatives to both approaches, but most > > > communities I have seen are CTR. > > > > > > > > >
