Mailing-List: contact giraph-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: giraph-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jghoman@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4177476F-B94C-41EE-986A-FD16189B168D@hortonworks.com>
References: <4177476F-B94C-41EE-986A-FD16189B168D@hortonworks.com>
From: Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:09:57 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CADiKvVtoZOLn6pCnz_7f-vhSkCyY_oBpZAzjGrVVRdyOeFKjfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: dev process
To: giraph-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

RTC is definitely the way to go (he said with a weary sigh).

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Owen O'Malley <owen@hortonworks.com> wrote=
:
> All,
> =A0 It seems that we've implicitly picked review then commit (RTC) instea=
d of commit then review (CTR). Apache projects allow either approach and I'=
m fine with either. We should just state what we are doing.
> =A0 I'd also like to propose that we keep a CHANGES.txt file that include=
s who contributed and committed each patch. I've created GIRAPH-19 to do th=
at.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- Owen