Re: RTC/CTR Discussion

For sure. Code can always evolve and if a commit happens that needs some refinement all is fine. In essence ctr is always available. For us adopting RTC it means, in my opinion, that you should obtain an independent opinion that it is good to go. As new folks contribute it stokes engagement

Re: RTC/CTR Discussion

This was raised on a recent PR commit; bringing it here for discussion: It's my understanding the members of the PMC (Tim, Suneel, etc) are also committers and able to perform a review in a RTC scenario. Thoughts? On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Josh Elser wrote: > I

Re: RTC/CTR Discussion

I lean towards just needing a +1 to commit and still doing that myself. Just need to be clear however is decided. Ellison Anne Williams wrote: I don't see point in having to get a +1 from another committer for fixing trivial items such as merge conflicts, build breaks, etc. I also would

Re: RTC/CTR Discussion

+1. On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > It seems that we could give RTC a shot, with one reviewer posting a +1 (or > equivalent) comment on a pull request before it is accepted, and switch > back to CTR if RTC became too burdensome. > > It

Re: RTC/CTR Discussion

On 17/07/16 19:31, Suneel Marthi wrote: > +1 to RTC, this is what's presently done on Flink, Mahout and few other > projects I had seen. > > Its usually a committer reviewing the patch, providing feedback, and > finally committing it. > Whether a pull request gets a +1 from another committer or