Mark Brouwer wrote:
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
Bottom line: I think CTR + a good use of common sense is more than
enough. But then again, this is only me and RTC is kosher as well. If
you're used to it, I see no reason to change that immediately.
Hi Gianugo,
I see your points and as any process could work depending on the type of
people and their willingness to make it work, I believe there are 2
issues not yet mentioned related to the River codebase that make RTC
IMHO the best choice for the moment.
Given the definitions of RTC and CTR (is useful in rapid-prototyping
environments) in the glossary, I concur that RTC is a better candidate
for the existing codebase. Moreover, I think starting off with a more
familiar process helps to ease the transition.
