Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of msebor@gmail.com designates
 64.233.184.234 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender;
        b=Kv4voXlLsLzWrQpofsTJBXFyvNDBMpSzUA2Z2IAKoRV60VG10xfs66NfURuT1CMaSrNcuaUXklOcm5ysnYkvViWsbzg3/xI3wHSBFKRQPgVIzNSBxExn3MYuAr6AHMng25omp66AK2/hYKd9PLDodTxDrVm5TadWIxpfchPoU5A=
Message-ID: <464BE372.6020304@roguewave.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 23:09:06 -0600
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
Organization: Rogue Wave Software
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.8.0.10) Gecko/20070301 Fedora/1.0.8-0.6.2.fc6 pango-text SeaMonkey/1.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] commit-then-review vs review-then-commit
References: <4649D202.6020709@roguewave.com> <464B95AA.8020800@rowe-clan.net>
In-Reply-To: <464B95AA.8020800@rowe-clan.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>

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