bigtop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Bayer <andrew.ba...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review then commit, or commit then review?
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:57:30 GMT
I'm personally neutral on this. I've had more experience with
commit-then-review, but as Andrei pointed out, review-then-commit is more
common in the Hadoop world.

I do think that at this point, when there are still fairly trivial changes
to be made in terms of license headers, name changes, etc, that a hard and
fast review-then-commit approach may be a little over the top. Some
flexibility definitely makes sense for now.

A.

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:

> for those of you new to apache comittership:
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview
>
> be sure the read through the committer guide as well:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/committer.html
> http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
>
> Patrick
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Andrei Savu <savu.andrei@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 for review then commit. I believe that most of the Apache (all?) do
> this.
> >
> > -- Andrei Savu / andreisavu.ro
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> So we should probably figure this out before we get any further. Are we
> >> going to go with the review then commit model, or commit then review
> (i.e.,
> >> ask permission or ask forgiveness)? Does anyone have any thoughts or
> >> opinions on this?
> >>
> >> A.
> >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message