From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199801141624.LAA03871@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: [POLL] experiment with commit-then-review
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:24:42 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <34BCE363.FADBD426@Golux.Com> from "Rodent of Unusual Size" at
 Jan 14, 98 11:10:11 am
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> 
> Well, with the votes tallied, it looks like we'll be trying the
> commit-then-review model.
> 
> >    * Ken's [POLL] experiment with commit-then-review
> >      Shall we permit unreviewed commits to the source tree?  (Details
> >      of when it's [in]appropriate to be worked out later.)  Vote, please.
> >       <34B8EEF7.E4BD2126@Golux.Com>
> >       Status: Ken +1, Randy +1, Ben +1, Martin +1, Dean +1, Brian +1,
> >               Jim +1, Rob +1, Paul 0, Ralf +1
> 
> Now for Stage 2, so we can get down to it:
> 
> Is everyone happy with Rob's pithy statement of the guidelines as
> "ideas must be review-then-commit, patches can be commit-then-review"?
> Dean, Jim, and Ralf have +1ed it, and I'm adding my +1 now.
> 
> Obviously, items the submitter isn't sure about or that may fire a
> controversy should probably go through review first.  What about
> enhancements?  I think the discussion resulted in their being okey
> under the c-t-r method.
> 
> What about enhancements during the beta cycle (e.g., right now)?
> There have been some comments aired to the effect that we may have
> feature-frozen too soon.
> 

I think that features, whether new or otherwise, fall under the "ideas"
umbrella. What's important is that people keep the group informed.

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"