incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE] commit-then-review vs review-then-commit policy
Date Wed, 23 May 2007 16:49:52 GMT
Martin Sebor wrote:
> I think the discussion has wound down so let's have a vote and
> decide whether stdcxx committers should follow the Commit-Then
> Review (CTR) or Review-Then-Commit (RTC) policy on stdcxx/trunk
> by default.
> 
> [+1]  All committers follow Commit-Then-Review for safe changes,
>      Review-Then-Commit for potentially breaking changes. What
>      constitutes a breakng change is a judgment call to be made
>      by each committer. The rule of thumb is that changes which
>      involve advanced/sophisticated C++ features, C99 features,
>      or optional POSIX (and other) extensions may cause breakage
>      on some platforms.
> 
> [+/-0]  All committers follow Review-Then-Commit for all changes
>      with no exceptions.
> 
> [-1]  New committers and committers who haven't been active in
>      more than [ ] months follow the RTC policy for at least
>      [ ] weeks of sustained activity, all others CTR.
> 
> Please check the box you're voting for (or put +1/-1 in any or
> all of them). When voting for #3, also put numbers in the two
> [ ] boxes to complete the rules.

I was concerned about the legitimacy of the last bullet, but the way
in which you composed #3 leads me to merely disfavor it, not object
to it as an invalid option.  If the group accepted it, I don't think
that a neutral, well-stated policy like this would be invalid to the ASF.

Bill

Mime
View raw message