Would you prefer pure CTR or go towards Lazy Consensus (wait x days and then commit if no one says anything)? Doing the later would give people a chance to speak up before something got committed.
> On Nov 29, 2018, at 9:38 PM, Akira Ajisaka <[email protected]> wrote: > > Big +1 from me. > > -Akira > 2018年11月30日(金) 14:35 Allen Wittenauer <[email protected]>: >> >> >> I propose moving the Apache Yetus project to a Commit-then-Review model. >> It's been evident for a very long time now that patch reviews are lacking >> sufficient resources to move the project forward. As a result, patches may >> sit there for a very long time. >> >> I believe the only way to improve the situation is to make Apache Yetus >> easier to use for those outside the ASF bubble to draw more interest in the >> project. The only way to do that is to change some of the core assumptions >> of the code, write documentation to the website, and so on. To do those >> things in a way the whole project benefits is to commit them to the source >> tree. However, accomplishing those things cannot be done if patches are >> left to rot. Thus, we are in a chicken-and-egg scenario. >> >> Going to CTR would mean that the usual quality checks would happen either >> post-commit, during release, or perhaps we have a window by which patches >> may be committed lacking any input (say, 24 hours). >> >> Incidentally, reading through >> https://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html#guide-for-new-committers >> it would appear that CTR is the norm in the ASF. >> >> Thoughts?
