On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it could be tough to get Cassandra through a graduation vote
> on general@ while working with RTC. I know there are some other
> projects that use RTC, but its usually only for stable or release
> branches isn't it?
>
> Things seem to be going well these days, what are the issues with
> trying CTR now for a while?
So I've thought about this a lot since Paul's brief objection.
Historically I have been a huge non-fan of RTC. It can slow things
down significantly with the overhead of switching between patchsets in
various stages of review.
BUT.
Git-svn makes that go away almost entirely. I am never blocking for
code to be reviewed; I just go code something else in the meantime. I
branch per-ticket so revisiting to incorporate feedback or commit is
trivial. I don't feel like I am wasting time fighting the tools like
I used to with svn. (Especially with
http://github.com/eevans/git-jira-attacher/.) All the other
committers have switched to git-svn as well.
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.")
So I would argue that RTC is working for us, making sure reviews
actually happen, while git makes it mostly stay out of our way. I
_would_ be in favor of being less dogmatic about it
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-528 from earlier
today is a fine example) but in general I prefer not fixing what ain't
broke.
-Jonathan
|