For sure. Code can always evolve and if a commit happens that needs some refinement all is fine. In essence ctr is always available. For us adopting RTC it means, in my opinion, that you should obtain an independent opinion that it is good to go. As new folks contribute it stokes engagement and even mentoring and as veterans of the project contribute it encourages shared understanding.
I see it as a sort of rTCtr (case intentional). Provably worth documenting the approach either way on a wiki. Thanks Joe On Jul 24, 2016 10:59 AM, "Ellison Anne Williams" <[email protected]> wrote: > This was raised on a recent PR commit; bringing it here for discussion: > > It's my understanding the members of the PMC (Tim, Suneel, etc) are also > committers and able to perform a review in a RTC scenario. > > Thoughts? > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I lean towards just needing a +1 to commit and still doing that myself. > > > > Just need to be clear however is decided. > > > > > > Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > > > >> I don't see point in having to get a +1 from another committer for > fixing > >> trivial items such as merge conflicts, build breaks, etc. I also would > >> through trivial updates to the website like fixing typos, broken > >> hyperlinks, adding hyperlinks, etc. > >> > >> My interpretation of RTC is that the author can commit their own changes > >> after receiving +1 from a reviewer (another committer). > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Tim Ellison<[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> On 22/07/16 05:50, Andy LoPresto wrote: > >>> > >>>> One of the nice effects of RTC is that the community gets an > >>>> opportunity to gently enforce code convention and prevent rapid build > >>>> up of technical debt. Something else I've witnessed is that as the > >>>> community grows, non-committers feel more comfortable submitting PRs > >>>> because they've seen the same review process applied regardless of > >>>> the submitter's status. > >>>> > >>>> Apologies if I missed these points on an earlier thread. > >>>> > >>> Sure, I don't feel strongly either way -- though I would expect a > >>> committer to be able to fix trivial items like a simple merge conflict, > >>> or backout a build breaking change without always having to get a > >>> backing +1 from elsewhere. > >>> > >>> Out of curiosity, does folks' interpretation of RTC mean that the > author > >>> never commits their own changes? i.e. the reviewer always commits (as > >>> the original author)? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Tim > >>> > >>> > >> >
