geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <>
Subject CTR vs. RTC
Date Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:49:15 GMT

On Jan 16, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> David Jencks wrote:
>> I also am not so sure that this magnitude of change needs prior
>> discussion on the list.  I've frequently made larger changes without
>> discussion of my specific code.  I've also broken lots of stuff at
>> various times.
> Let's all come into agreement on the development model, then.
> Apache historically has use two distinct models, called Review
> Then Commit (RTC) and Commit Then Review (CTR).
> Under the RTC model, all changes -- except to docco or minor
> bug fixes -- need to be reviewed and garner at least three +1
> votes before being committed.  Giving a +1 means you've applied
> the patch and tested it yourself.  If a patch doesn't get the
> requisite number of positive votes, it doesn't get committed.
> Under CTR, any change can get committed at any time, although
> major ones are supposed to follow the RTC model.  Committers
> need to ask themselves whether the commit will spark controversy;
> if so, they should follow RTC and get support first.
> The advantages of RTC are code quality and team building.  Nothing
> goes in that hasn't been tested by at least three people.  The
> primary disadvantage is that its conservative approach tends to
> slow down development.  Its enemies are self-interest and apathy;
> supporters need to lobby for their work to be tested, and all
> developers need to remember that they're dependent upon one
> another.
> The advantage of CTR is prototyping speed.  Its disadvantages
> are less-assured quality and community divisiveness.  Its
> enemy is ego.  Since criticism occurs after code has been
> committed, personal investment is greater and defensiveness
> higher.  Developers are typically less aware of each others'
> work.
> I believe it is safe to say that Geronimo has been operating
> in CTR mode, but I think the specifics and ground rules may
> not have been spelt out, or need to be again.  Is this the
> way in which the majority wants to continue to proceed?

I'm fine with CTR on trunk.  Discussion is a plus.  If you don't  
discuss and check in and break something, well ... let's just say  
it's an opportunity to impress everyone with how much of a team  
player you are ;)

I'm mostly fine with CTR on a branch like 1.0.x, tempted to say RTC  
but don't want to go quite that far.  Discussion or a heads up being  
more or less required; a really good idea at the least.  Don't want  
to say full RTC because I think after a while we'll get a feel for  
what we think is good to add to a stable branch and what is not.   
We're probably going to have to be a bit chatty on what goes in 1.0.x  
in the sort term, though, while we find our groove.


View raw message