Jukka Zitting wrote:
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.
I like that.
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.
I like that too, any suggestion what the right number of days would be
in such a case?
With Jukka's suggestions I think we can have a proper review policy in
place that is swift in case 3 or more pair of eyes like the commit and
prevents from a commit stalling when there are no people to do the
review or want to 'veto' indirectly by expressing no opinion.
--
Mark
