> Whether it's strict or not-strict isn't uber important. > > At Apache, those doing the work decide. If those doing the work really want > to take advantage of patch reviewing, before committing stuff to version > control, > by all means. I'm a big fan of Review Board, but I never like projects > that > *require* anything, least of all patch review. These are really community > and > social norms we're talking about here, not technical. > I read this as a pretty exact restatement (with more detail) of what I said, so I don't think we're in disagreement here.
> If there is a desire by a minority to perhaps commit and not hold > stuff in patches, and that minority has a ton of great work and thoughts, > and discusses > them on list, I would encourage Tajo to tell that minority (PPMC member, > let's say): > > 1. Create a branch > 2. Go wild > 3. Merge into *pristine* area selectively, with consensus, (LOL I'm not a > Git expert, but in my SVN mind, let's > say "trunk") and that merge may need to be reviewed by patch review, if > most of the Tajo peeps > like RTC and are working in that pristine area. > > We're using version control here, and branches are cheap, so I would > encourage the > above flow. That being said, "play nice" is the advice I'd give :) > Yep, this is great for large amounts of work that require a higher velocity than may otherwise be available. It's effectively still RTC since that final merge should be reviewed - even more so than a regular commit. But that's not what's being discussed here. I don't see any work of that magnitude imminent. > > Yeah I guess I'm ambivalent. I think people should be able to operate in > both > modes per my 1-3 above. I tend to do that in OODT, Nutch, Tika, > Solr/Lucene (when > I was on those projects), SIS, Gora, etc. And for the projects I've done RTC has worked great. Neither is right or wrong. It's like driving on the right or left - either works fine, but everybody should know what the expectation is to avoid nasty collisions. RTC seems the more conservative, safer bet and has a large number of +1s behind it. And, of course, if the emerging community finds it cumbersome, it should be jettisoned or re-evaluated. I just want to make sure that no hackles get raised in the beginning by unexpected commits showing up.
