+1 Review than commit process
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Avery Ching <ach...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> I agree that RTC is better for us, although in case of build breakage, I'm
> okay with CTR in that case.
> On Aug 31, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Jakob Homan wrote:
>> RTC is definitely the way to go (he said with a weary sigh).
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Owen O'Malley <o...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>> It seems that we've implicitly picked review then commit (RTC) instead of
>>> commit then review (CTR). Apache projects allow either approach and I'm
>>> fine with either. We should just state what we are doing.
>>> I'd also like to propose that we keep a CHANGES.txt file that includes
>>> who contributed and committed each patch. I've created GIRAPH-19 to do that.
>>> -- Owen