My opinion is minimally valuable here as I've only been heavily involved in one project and it was RTC. That said, I have found RTC to work extremely well in that community. It has helped with code quality, fostering discussion, and community growth.
However, there are other opinions on this topic and they are quite strong. Take a look in the incubator general list for some examples. I believe CTR is the more traditional path but its best to get opinions from this from more veteran apache folks. This link helps http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit and points to an important page also to be read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html So, I am favorable to RTC but again my perspective is not rooted in sufficient experience for that to be all that useful of an opinion. On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Ellison Anne Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > So, it occurs to me that I'm not the best with Apache protocol yet... (any > tips would be greatly appreciated!) > > To that end, let's discuss whether or not we should adopt a RTC (Review > Then Commit) or a CTR (Commit then Review) commit philosophy for Pirk. > > As I understand it, if we adopt RTC, then a pull request must get a +1 from > another committer before the pull request can be accepted/merged. If we > adopt a CTR, then a committer can accept a pull request when they are ready > with a reviewer (optionally) going back and checking it out. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks! > > Ellison Anne
