Hi, On 8/29/07, Mark Brouwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm inclined to a Review-Then-Commit policy although a 3 days period > before being able to check-in feels like a very long time in some cases, > although completely understandable from the perspective to give people > time to look into it.
A good balance would be to allow a commit to take place as soon as the 3 +1 votes (and no vetoes) are cast, as it's always possible to revert a change if someone later wants to veto it. > Another risk is that 'commit starvation' occurs when there are no 3 > committers finding the time to look into it and as a result there won't > be any 3 +1's required to be allowed to check-in the code. A lazy consensus rule could be used to pass "under-reviewed" changes after some number of days. BR, Jukka Zitting
