stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: [RFC] commit-then-review vs review-then-commit
Date Thu, 17 May 2007 05:09:06 GMT
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

Mime
View raw message