Hey Jakob, Yep reading the below looks like we are in agreement. +1!
Cheers, Chris On 3/19/13 10:59 AM, "Jakob Homan" <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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.
