I hear you and understand what you're getting at. Also understand I've not been helpful in this regard myself of late.
Regardless, it's still a bad idea imo (in this context, not in general). I notice from your spreadsheet that most stuff is green with a couple reds. I've found that setting a date and reaching out the the people interested in the functionality is a useful way to make progress. You might also consider making a release that has some parts of the matrix in red and just calling that out in the release documentation. Patrick On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Andrei Savu <savu.and...@gmail.com> wrote: > Patrick I agree 100% but some code is better than no code. I feel like at > least for > a while I have been the only one constantly watching the email list and > doing > some work on the open issues. > > I don't like the fact that we are delaying this release so much and most of > the > emails I write on the list get no replies from the rest of the core dev > team. > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> My .02 -- a core assumption of CTR is that people are actively >> reviewing changes. The intent of CTR is not to reduce oversight. >> That's an anti-pattern. >> >> Patrick >> >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Andrei Savu <savu.and...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi guys, >> > >> > I want to propose that we change from Review-Then-Commit to >> > Commit-Then-Review >> > for a while with the amendment that complicated changes still require >> code >> > review. >> > >> > The main reason I am asking this is because over the last few weeks I >> have >> > noticed >> > a lack of engagement from the members of the core development team and >> this >> > slows >> > down things a lot. I am happy to see more and more people using Whirr >> and I >> > think we >> > should keep on developing things as fast as possible. >> > >> > We can go back to RTC later as soon as we have 3+ active committers. >> > >> > What do you think? >> > >> > -- Andrei Savu >>
