It's very low tech, subscribe to commits (or look at archive), just look at quickly at every email and reply (back to dev@) if something is unclear. Revert git commit if something breaks.
(But no-one are necessarily "on watch" so commits might go unnoticed.) Apache Commons work like that, which is a bit important there as they have granted all ASF committers write access and the Commons libraries have hundreds of thousands of users. You could also look at the git log locally or at GitHub, but we have many repositories and a couple of branches. This might be good before a release. On 4 Nov 2016 1:39 pm, "Gale Naylor" <[email protected]> wrote: > RTC for large changes and CTR for maintenance sounds good. I'm curious - > What is the process for CTR with the @commits list? > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016, 5:31 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > CTR can be done with the commits@ list, but with git it can be way too > > noisy to follow or understand. Pull Request have very good UI for code > > review. I think we also have an ASF Gerrit instance we can use. > > > > How about we do RTC for large things or where a committer is not quite > > sure, but CTR for maintenance things? > > > > Also I would put an informal 1w deadline on any pull requests after which > > the committer just merges themselves. > > > > On 4 Nov 2016 11:48 am, "Andy Seaborne" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There are two styles > > > > > > CTR - "Commit then review" -- its still up for review > > > RTC - "Review then commit" > > > > > > and hybrid forms such as committers doing CTR for small, "obvious" > things > > > (e.g. "Doh!" bug fixes; emergency repair) and RTC via PR when larger or > > the > > > committer is seeking review. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > On 04/11/16 04:11, Thilina Manamgoda wrote: > > > > > >> HI, > > >> > > >> I think this is a good idea. There may be mistakes in my code because > > >> still i am not a expert thus code review is a good approach. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Thilina > > >> > > >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Ian Dunlop <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hello, > > >>> > > >>> I think we need a policy decision on how to add new code to existing > > >>> projects. Apache Taverna commiters can just merge straight into > master > > >>> but perhaps we should have a policy of using pull requests so that we > > >>> can review the code first. It might mean there is a slight overhead > but > > >>> maybe long term it means we get better code out of it. Myself and > Sagar > > >>> were just having a chat about this with respect to the TavMob project > > so > > >>> it might not be appropriate for every repo. > > >>> > > >>> Discuss. > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> > > >>> Ian > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >
