incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)
Date Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:16:10 GMT
Interesting, Todd, can you identify which of your three arguments for CTR are not present in


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Lipcon [] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Todd Lipcon <> wrote:
> >...
> > I think it's a _plus_ that contributors and committers contribute 
> > code in the same way -- it's more of a level playing field for new 
> > people contributing to the project.
> >
> "level playing field"?? seriously??
> I find no logical or valid reasoning to drag committers down to the 
> same level as drive-by contributors.

I gave the logical and valid reasoning in previous posts in this thread:
1) no matter how seasoned a committer you are, you might make mistakes which are easily caught
in code review
2) no matter how good you are at coding, your code might not make sense to a second pair of
eyes, who can ask you to improve comments or docs
3) no matter if your code is perfect, the act of another person reading your code builds shared
ownership over the code, thus alleviating bus-factor issues and improving the general feeling
of a cohesive community developing a single project instead of a loose coalition of people
with their own fiefdoms.

I believe this to be generally accepted in the software engineering community. I don't know
practices at every company, but I know at least that most of the well-regarded technology
companies I've met with have some form of pre-commit review, and certainly many highly adopted
open source projects as well (especially in infrastructure software).

Either a high percentage of the world does this for "no logical or valid reason" or this is
just a matter of opinion, and like I said, we can agree to disagree.

View raw message