Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 42867 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2009 10:21:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Nov 2009 10:21:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 26842 invoked by uid 500); 12 Nov 2009 10:21:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 26641 invoked by uid 500); 12 Nov 2009 10:21:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 26631 invoked by uid 99); 12 Nov 2009 10:21:31 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:21:31 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of paul@querna.org designates 209.85.210.174 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.210.174] (HELO mail-yx0-f174.google.com) (209.85.210.174) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:21:23 +0000 Received: by yxe4 with SMTP id 4so1771212yxe.32 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:21:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.226.13 with SMTP id y13mr4130437agg.107.1258021261199; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:21:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6cca3db30911111916o69a9557ar7ad4b3eea2f0d9de@mail.gmail.com> References: <6cca3db30911111916o69a9557ar7ad4b3eea2f0d9de@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:21:01 -0800 Message-ID: <4239a4320911120221y3b8e2faem91aa2abbeac66c7a@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Review-Then-Commit From: Paul Querna To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > Not a "strong opinion", but I think that RTC hampers the free-flow of > ideas, experimentation, evolution, and creativity. It is a damper on > expressivity. You maneuver bureaucracy to get a change in. CTR is > about making a change and discussing it. But you get *forward > progress*. > > I also feel that RTC will tend towards *exclusivity* rather than the > Apache ideal of *inclusivity*. That initial review is a social and > mental burden for new committers. People are afraid enough of > submitting patches and trying to join into a development community, > without making them run through a front-loaded process. > > I've participated in both styles of development. RTC is *stifling*. I > would never want to see that in any Apache community for its routine > development (branch releases are another matter). > > My opinion is that it is very unfortunate that Cassandra feels that it > cannot trust its developers with a CTR model, and pushes RTC as its > methodology. The group-mind smashes down the creativity of the > individual, excited, free-thinking contributor. +1, thanks for writing this all out Greg, your thoughts about RTC for 'trunk' type branches is exactly inline with my own -- it doesn't mean there should be a decrease in end quality, but it definitely does stifle several potential aspects of the community. This is my concern with regards to Cassandra, based on my own experiences with CTR/RTC at Apache and other projects. Thanks, Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org