cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Johan Oskarsson <>
Subject Re: Graduation?
Date Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:06:20 GMT
+1 on RTC for the reasons mentioned below.


Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM, ant elder <> wrote:
>> I think it could be tough to get Cassandra through a graduation vote
>> on general@ while working with RTC. I know there are some other
>> projects that use RTC, but its usually only for stable or release
>> branches isn't it?
>> Things seem to be going well these days, what are the issues with
>> trying CTR now for a while?
> So I've thought about this a lot since Paul's brief objection.
> Historically I have been a huge non-fan of RTC.  It can slow things
> down significantly with the overhead of switching between patchsets in
> various stages of review.
> BUT.
> Git-svn makes that go away almost entirely.  I am never blocking for
> code to be reviewed; I just go code something else in the meantime.  I
> branch per-ticket so revisiting to incorporate feedback or commit is
> trivial.  I don't feel like I am wasting time fighting the tools like
> I used to with svn.  (Especially with
>  All the other
> committers have switched to git-svn as well.
> I do think there should be room for individual discretion here.  If
> you have a trivial change, just commit it and be done.  But in
> general, I think the extra care of RTC is usually worth it for us.  I
> see reviews becoming a lot more perfunctory / not happening at all if
> we just commit first.  (Just about all my experience has been in CTR
> projects, both closed and OSS.  This isn't just a theoretical concern,
> DESPITE the best of intentions that "we'll do reviews, promise.")
> So I would argue that RTC is working for us, making sure reviews
> actually happen, while git makes it mostly stay out of our way.  I
> _would_ be in favor of being less dogmatic about it
> ( from earlier
> today is a fine example) but in general I prefer not fixing what ain't
> broke.
> -Jonathan

View raw message