groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Russel Winder <>
Subject Re: New Workflow…
Date Mon, 27 Apr 2015 21:01:58 GMT
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 19:45 +0200, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> […]
> To be clear (or to clarify what I mean) :
> - ctr and rct are both way to process an update *for committers*. For
> contributors, a review is necessary, of course. I may have made things
> blurry in my previous mails.

I fear there is a very CVCS definition of "committer" implicit in the
above. In DVCS the roles of committer and contributor are clearly distinct.
A committer is a person who enacts a reviewed contribution, and only that.
All contributions should be reviewed, even those of a committer. This is
about roles being distinct from people. A person may be a committer and a
contributor but the workflow of that person as contributor should be
identical to that of Joe or Jane Bloggs providing a contribution. 

> Basically, when a non-committer propose a patch, a committer will RTC,
> and for most apache project, when a committer has a patch, then it's a
> CTR except for some critical projects, where another committer has to
> validate the patch (thius this is a RTC)

This may have been true in the 1990s with SCCS, RCS, and SVN, but this
should not be true in a properly managed project. All contributions should
be reviewed before commit to the mainline no matter what. RTC is all there
is, anythong else is hacking of the worst order. Obviously here I am
talking about big projects with multiple committers, for one person
projects things are different.
Dr Russel Winder     t:+44 20 7585 2200   voip:sip:
41 Buckmaster Road   m:+44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK  w: skype:russel_winder

View raw message