Review Board is really nice if the project decides to adopt the RTC model because it can hook directly into the git commit process preventing commits until the review has completed successfully. I have used it with great success in the past on a project with more than 30 team members committing and it worked well, but this was not an open source project. At any rate, it's something to consider.
I know that there is a concern about the quality of the code, so in addition to considering RTC, I suggest first considering the establishment of standards for the Definition of Done for any contribution and publishing them in the wiki. E.g., code is not considered complete without unit tests, integration tests and documentation. Establishing and communicating such requirements in the beginning will set the expectations now for all contributors. Most projects that adopt the RTC model do so in order to strictly control incoming changes to the code base. Tomcat is a good example -- the project keeps very tight control over changes because it is such a critical piece of infrastructure for so many users. Bruce On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:50 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > Not sure if it helps for CTR/RTC, ASF does host a review board instance ( > https://reviews.apache.org ). > > Personally, I agree with Justin's sentiments about process. I do see a > number of projects that use RTC. They're generally projects dominated by a > single vendor. > > John > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:22 AM Von Gosling <vongosl...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > 1. Refer to RTC or CTR problem > > > > For commit, may be, we could use CTR. For PR, we would prefer to RTC. We > > are high valuing the quality in RocketMQ. So, it is a better way to use > the > > conservative strategy from my opinion :-) > > > > 2. Refer to PPMC and committer relationship > > Thanks Justin refers. We are not familiar with Apache recommended way for > > this problem. But i have learn about something about PMC additional > > responsibilities. IMO, we really want to keep the community diversity. > > Committer may be a good candidate for entering into PMC. For the same > > reason, contributor may be a good candidate for becoming Committer. > > > > AFAIK, Apache Tomcat have separate the PMC member and committer role. > And, > > Apache Storm may regard as the committer as PMC member when someone make > a > > great achievement for the project[1]. > > > > 1. http://storm.apache.org/contribute/People.html < > > http://storm.apache.org/contribute/People.html> > > > > > > > > > 在 2017年1月3日，16:33，Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> 写道： > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > >> IMO, not only the number of PR, more concerned about the quality of > PR. > > > > > > Just try not to have the bar too high / wait too long to vote potential > > candidates in. This may discourage people being invoved and hinder > > community growth. But it’s totally up to this PPMC to decide this. > > > > > >> PPMC number of members should be less than the number of committer, > > IMHO, > > >> the committers are not all PPMC. > > > > > > Which is fine being a PPMC/PMC member had additional responsibilities > [1] > > > > > >> RTC +1 The reference quality is the first priority. > > > > > > JFYI This is uncommon in Apache projects and all projects I have been > > involved in have been CTR. In CTR any commit is just a revert away. I’ve > > not seen many cases where it’s been an issue, especially where you have > > good test coverage and code quality metrics. But again it’s totally up to > > the PPMC to decide. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Justin > > > > > > 1. https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#policy > > > > > -- perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
