incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Holsman <...@holsman.net>
Subject Re: Graduation?
Date Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:44:05 GMT
I don't think there is any policy or standard about RTC or CTR.
different groups do different things, depending on the community.
so I don't see this as a hang up for graduation.

On Nov 6, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Roland Dreier wrote:

>> 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.")
>
> This gets to my central question, which I would be really happy to
> have answered by a CTR proponent.  How do you make sure that changes
> *ever* get reviewed, since CTR seems to operate on lazy consensus ("if
> you object to this change, speak up")?  *everyone* would rather write
> code rather than review someone else's changes, so it seems that the
> quantity of changes going in is always going to exceed the amount of
> review being done, leading to an ever-growing review backlog.
>
> I just don't see how CTR can scale to a big project.  It might scale
> to a big codebase, if each piece has only one or a few committers
> touching it, but when a lot of people are all working on the same
> stuff, I wonder how anything will get reviewed in time.
>
> (FWIW, my background is pretty much exclusively in RTC projects such
> as the Linux kernel)
>
> - R.

--
Ian Holsman
Ian@Holsman.net




Mime
View raw message