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

Reply via email to