geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <>
Subject Re: Returning to Commit-Then-Review?
Date Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:14:00 GMT
On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:56 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> I'd be more inclined to talk about what we want to apply it to and  
> how.

More thoughts on the "where" and "how" topic.

So far my thoughts on "how"; review to your satisfaction and +1, 72  
hour cut off.

As far as "where" ....

I'm inclined to say "at your discretion" where the following are  
  - Significant new functionality
  - Significant changes
  - Patches from Contributors
  - Borderline "fixes" to a stable branch

Whether or not it merits RTC would be at your discretion.  It is to
your advantage in these situations because:

- "Significant new functionality" and "Significant changes": It's a
    "Get out of jail free" card.  Having more people understand your
    code keeps you from spending all day on the user list.  You do
    support your code on the user list, right?

- "Patches from Contributors": Getting three votes for your patches
    is not a bad way to, in time, get your three votes to be a
    committer.  Let's be clear, someone who commits all your patches
    with no review from others on the project isn't doing you any
    favors.  It's in your interest to push to get your votes on every

- "Borderline 'fixes' to a stable branch": It's a given you will
    think everything you want to put in a stable branch is important.
    But, is it a fix or is it a new feature?  If you think others may
    disagree, you may want to put it up for review or you may find
    yourself running the TCK all alone with no help.

Those are the advantages you stand to gain should you choose to use  
RTC for any of the above situations.  RTC is not the only way to get  
the above benefits, so it is at your discretion whether or not your  
situation merits it.

My pragmatic take on RTC for the moment.


View raw message