OK, then I think that we've been talking past each other the whole time, since we've never had a policy anywhere near as rigorous as Apache's R-T-C. It's more like, someone *should* review before it's committed, at the very least the person who's doing the committing.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Bryan Duxbury <br...@rapleaf.com> > > To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 7:35:56 PM > > Subject: Re: time for a reboot? > > > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com > >wrote: > > > > > Note also that ANYONE can provide that review, > > > it's not an activity limited to current committers only. > > > > > > > Yes! This is what I'm trying to convey to people all the time. I'll > commit > > anything reviewed positively, but someone has to review it. > > Good. You do realize tho that when Apache people talk about > review-then-commit, they are referring to a more formal process > where 3 +1's from committers are required to commit any patch. > What you are actually looking for in the above statement amounts > to a commit-then-review policy with a basic sanity check prior to > the commit. In C-T-R the review by fellow committers is lazy: > it is assumed to have taken place on each commits, and if a committer > detects an issue with a commit they will comment/vote on the > commit message. > > > >
