Tim My apologies for waiting so long to reply.
Regarding my case notation and implication I meant to suggest that even in an RTC environment there is still a chance for review after the commit. Because of that, I feel the benefits of RTC are in play and the safety net of CTR is still in play. So for me i'd suggest anyone with committer status be considered a valid reviewer. I like the spectrum you suggest though :-) Thanks Joe On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24/07/16 16:10, Joe Witt wrote: >> For sure. > > Members of the PMC are not necessarily committers, Suneel and I are > proof positive. However, I agree that in established projects the PMC > is drawn from the technical community, and it would be unusual for > someone to be invited to the PMC (to give technical direction and > project management overview) without them also being committers. > >> 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. > > Agreed. Without debating the criteria for committership, I'm still > "acquiring my merit" in the project, and when the PMC deem fit, I hope > to be invited to become a committer. > > In the meantime, I will continue to comment on PRs etc from all authors, > but don't consider my +1 to be a sufficient review until it is backed by > the merit of my committership. > >> I see it as a sort of rTCtr (case intentional). > > Does your case notation mean the reviews are not so important as the > commits? > > I'm curious. Presuming RTC only really makes sense of the reviewer > groks the code base sufficiently well to understand the implications of > the proposed change. Where on the scale of "some passing dude we never > heard of before" to "grizzled old committer" do you place 'reviewer'? ;-) > > As I wrote before, and you state here, we can be quite relaxed about it > -- it's all in version control, mistakes can be fixed or rolled-back. > > Different projects acquire a personality about how they operate, and it > is healthy for Pirk to be thinking about these and choosing a model that > reflects the community best. > > Regards, > Tim > >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>
