incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)
Date Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:40:20 GMT
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ross Gardler
<Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Good point. I should add to my comments that even a CTR project uses RTC for non-committers.
And that a release vote means that at least three people have reviewed the code from (at least)
an IP standpoint, if not from a code quality standpoint.
>
> In other words, +1
>
> However, RTC projects do not use a mix and that's the point of contention here, some
people feel it is suboptimal (I'm one, but others disagree). The discussion is not whether
CTR also uses RTC at points, I believe that is a given.

Let me be pedantic for a moment.  While RTC projects that use
Subversion may disallow work in branches, even by committers; such a
restriction isn't even possible in Git -- even for non committers.

> Ross

- Sam Ruby

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sa3ruby@gmail.com [mailto:sa3ruby@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 7:43 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)
>
> +1 here too.
>
> Most projects here fall somewhere in a spectrum between "do whatever you want in a branch"
and "don't release without having others approve your work".  Different projects put the point
where CTR crosses over to RTC at different points.
>
> *shrug*
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> P.S.  Personally a fan of CTR, but I'm starting to appreciate our infrastructure team's
puppet workflow where everything (even one line
> changes) are done in a branch and everybody asks other person to merge the changes.
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fcwiki.apache.org%2fconfluence%2fdisplay%2fINFRA%2fGit%2bworkflow%2bfor%2binfrastructure-puppet%2brepo&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c44adea1c26a1499d757f08d2f1c13a31%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=485qCjFlNzNCg1JvNgDxSpSe79EwynxdP9RcmoEOsxw%3d
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> ++1
>>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>> ...httpd for example) uses RTC, CTR and Lazy Consensus
>>>> simultaneously and works like a dream....
>>>
>>> Indeed - those are different tools that each have their own purpose.
>>> They just need to be applied in the right places and at the right
>>> time.
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message