+1 to RTC, this is what's presently done on Flink, Mahout and few other projects I had seen.
Its usually a committer reviewing the patch, providing feedback, and finally committing it. Whether a pull request gets a +1 from another committer or not is entirely up to the project and could be decided on a case-by-case basis. A complex change or design might need more reviewers while a simple change could be good to commit without additional reviews. On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
