From stdcxx-dev-return-3448-apmail-incubator-stdcxx-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Wed May 23 16:50:17 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 80481 invoked from network); 23 May 2007 16:50:16 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 23 May 2007 16:50:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 44121 invoked by uid 500); 23 May 2007 16:50:22 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-stdcxx-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 44109 invoked by uid 500); 23 May 2007 16:50:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 44095 invoked by uid 99); 23 May 2007 16:50:22 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 May 2007 09:50:22 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.202.165.33] (HELO smtpauth11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) (64.202.165.33) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Wed, 23 May 2007 09:50:15 -0700 Received: (qmail 13158 invoked from network); 23 May 2007 16:49:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (24.15.193.17) by smtpauth11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.33) with ESMTP; 23 May 2007 16:49:52 -0000 Message-ID: <465470B0.9080208@rowe-clan.net> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 11:49:52 -0500 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] commit-then-review vs review-then-commit policy References: <46520C7C.7020702@roguewave.com> In-Reply-To: <46520C7C.7020702@roguewave.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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