stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Liviu Nicoara <>
Subject Re: [RFC] commit-then-review vs review-then-commit
Date Fri, 18 May 2007 14:07:45 GMT
> 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.

Judgment calls could be quickly trained by peer feed-back. Although  
we cannot precisely define what simple or obvious means in the  
context of stdcxx changes, an initial period of RTC for all newcomers  
-- and rusty committers as well ;-) -- would probably be beneficial.  
Other than that I agree that CTR for trivial patches is good comon- 


View raw message