Apologies, too much confusion in the last email... > @Emilian, > > Would you not want someone else to review your code changes anyways? > > > Yes as a committer you have more access, than say I do, but without any > checks and balances, not every committer might be writing their code to the > same quality. Maybe another committer has better knowledge of a certain area > that your change is for, and could be in a better position to point out > something during a review etc... > > Why not submit a PR, and let another committer review, and you/he then pushes > when both are happy. You're still maintain better access/standing but you > allow others to see that everyone is following the same process. > > Regards > > John
> On 27 Feb 2017, at 18:28, John McDonnell <mcdonnell.j...@gmail.com> wrote: > > @Emilian, > > Would you not want someone else to review anyways? > > > Yes as a committer you have more access, than say I do, but without any > checks and balances not every committer might be writing code to the same > quality. - Or maybe another committer has better knowledge of a certain area > and is able to point out something during a review etc... > > Why not you submit a PR, another committer reviews, and you/he then pushes. > You still maintain better access/standing but you allow others to see that > everyone is following the same process. > > Regards > > John > > > >> On 27 Feb 2017, at 17:21, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Emilian Bold <emilian.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> ...As a committer I expect *precisely* to be able to push changes without >>> any >>> review... >> >>> ...I believe the Apache "Lazy Consensus" matches my view perfectly... >> >> IIUC what you're describing is CTR, Commit-Then-Review. >> >> It's perfectly fine for an Apache project to use CTR for some parts of >> its code and RTC (Review-Then-Commit) for other, more critical parts. >> >> -Bertrand >
