I prefer Lazy Consensus.
Thanks, Akira 2018年12月4日(火) 10:13 Allen Wittenauer <[email protected]>: > > > 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? >
