metamodel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kasper Sørensen <i.am.kasper.soren...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Review Then Commit (RTC) or Commit Then Review (CTR) (Prev: Minor improvements to fluent Query builder API)
Date Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:31:58 GMT
Sorry for initially replying to the other thread...

I think your arguments are quite convincing actually. Opened my eyes on a
number of things. Taking those into account I think we should encourage
"mostly RTC", but I would like to also leave a small backdoor for very
minor commits or commits that don't change functionality as such (for
instance changes in build files, or fix to a broken unittest or stuff like
that).


2013/7/22 Arvind Prabhakar <arvind@apache.org>

> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.saputra@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Hi MetaModel community,
> > >
> > > Per email from Matt, I'd like to formally start discussion about Review
> > > Then Commit (RTC) or Commit Then Review (CTR).
> > >
> > > I actually like to use review then commit (RTC) for big changes tat
> > > requires changes to major code flow and behavior.
> > > For small bug fixes we probably dont need code review or use common
> sense
> > > when needed.
> > >
> >
> > In general, I agree.  The only thing I would change is that it depends on
> > where we are at in the development cycle.  If we are nearing release, RTC
> > makes a ton of sense for any large change, but early in development it
> can
> > be a big barrier to moving quickly.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> I would like to point out a different take on RTC, which is that it builds
> a stronger community. When every change must go through a committer review,
> it ensures that committers treat each other the same way as they would
> treat non-committers. In rare cases with CTR a committer may check in code
> that they would otherwise like changed if coming from a non-committer.
> Having RTC avoids such problems and provides a level playing field for the
> entire community, but of course comes at a great cost and potentially slows
> down overall development.
>
> Regards,
> Arvind Prabhakar
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > All comments and suggestions are welcomed.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Henry
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Matt Franklin <
> m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > This also brings up the question as to what type of community
> MetaModel
> > > > is/wants to be.  Are we Review Then Commit (RTC) or Commit Then
> Review
> > > > (CTR)?  There are positives and negatives to both approaches, but
> most
> > > > communities I have seen are CTR.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message