incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Black <>
Subject Re: [RFC] commit-then-review vs review-then-commit
Date Thu, 17 May 2007 23:55:54 GMT
One minor thing to consider is that some comitters are more familiar 
with certain parts of the library than others.  As an example, I am most 
familiar with the exec utility and the nightly build infrastructure. 
These sorts of familiarity are generally known to the other active 
comitters.  If I am making changes to a part someone else knows better 
than I, I will generally ask them to review it, even if the change might 
be considered minor.  However, if the change alters a section I am very 
familiar with, I am more likely to commit the change without asking for 
a review of it.

Unfortunately, it's hard to codify this knowledge in a concise manner, 
and explicitly designating ownership of every file would almost be an 
exercise in futility.

--Andrew Black

Martin Sebor wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> [...]
>>> So I would like to propose that we all follow a relaxed form of
>>> the Review-Then-Commit policy, where "simple" or "obviously safe"
>>> changes be allowed to go in under the Commit-Then-Review process.
>>> I don't think it's necessary to precisely define what "simple"
>>> or "obviously safe" means. It's a judgment call.
>> I might suggest the reverse, where the tree operates under C-T-R,
>> with R-T-C strongly requested for all larger patches, patches which
>> would exhibit more complex behaviors under multiple compilers, and
>> certainly build system changes.
> Yes, that probably makes more sense given that most of our changes
> have been of this nature (small isolated patches). Thanks for the
> suggestion, I'll offer it as one of the two options to vote on and
> let the majority decide between the two variations on the same
> theme:
> 1. CTR default with big/risky patches to follow RTC.
> 2. RTC default with simple patches to follow CTR.
> Unless there's more discussion I'll get the vote going tomorrow.
> Martin

View raw message