On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org > wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 5:25 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > ...RTC can be framed as "I don't trust you to do things right"... > > Or also "I don't trust myself 100% to do things right here and would > like systematic reviews of my commits". > People should be trusted to ask for help/review when necessary. CTR trusts people to commit changes they feel are right, but it also trusts them to stop and ask for a preliminary review when they feel/know they're deep into the tricky code. RTC never trusts people with the easy changes. It believes all changes are equal, assumes all changes are beyond the abilities of individuals, and all committers are incapable of self-reflection. That each and every change must be scrutinized by others for approval. Ted's phrase "I trust you to help me make things better" is not unique to RTC. Both CTR and RTC have that "R" in them for review, to ensure the code can always be improved. If I join a CTR community, then I know that I can go around improving comments, docstrings, and minor code cleanups. That is a solid contribution that every project would love to have. If I join an RTC community, I'm not trusted to do any of that. There is no other explanation. None of that has to do with "complexity". It is simply control and exclusion of my desire/interest to contribute. To keep the mantle of development within a select set of people who decided to exert this tactic over their codebase. -g
