The workflow will be pretty much the same as now with small modification:
- open a JIRA and put in the usual amount of the details; keep a discussion
on it if needed
- once a patch is ready it's getting committed to the branch (master or else
if some people are working on a feature branch)
- people get the message on commits@ list and go in and check the changes
-- if a commit has issues then a new JIRA is opened to iron it out
-- it'd be great to have an update the JIRA when the commit happens, but
it'd be nice in any case. Does anyone know what is needed for that?
- for contributors without the commiter-bit the process will remain the same
RTC as today
Makes sense?
Cos
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:27AM, Jay Vyas wrote:
> Commit-then-review? Intriguing. Can you propose the exact workflow you're
> suggesting?
>
> > On Dec 24, 2014, at 7:16 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I've been reading this discussion on Ignite (incubating) dev@ list
> > http://s.apache.org/wPA and it clicked with the thread we were having in
> > the last few days around the community and development processes.
> >
> > What do you guys think if we'll try CTR model? Committers here went through
> > the process of gaining their karma and proved with their contributions that
> > they don't need peer-reviews for a lot of things that are coming into the
> > project on the daily basis. The RTC is especially annoying for trivial
> > changes
> > and is really making things slower than they could've been.
> >
> > So, what do you think guys?
> >
> > --
> > Take care,
> > Cos
> > 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> > Cos' pubkey: http://people.apache.org/~cos/cos.asc
> >
> > ---- Wisdom of the hour ----
> >
> > FORTUNE PROVIDES QUESTIONS FOR THE GREAT ANSWERS: #4
> > A: Go west, young man, go west!
> > Q: What do wabbits do when they get tiwed of wunning awound?
