taverna-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
Subject Re: To pull or not to pull
Date Fri, 04 Nov 2016 12:29:55 GMT
CTR can be done with the commits@ list, but with git it can be way too
noisy to follow or understand. Pull Request have very good UI for code
review. I think we also have an ASF Gerrit instance we can use.

How about we do RTC for large things or where a committer is not quite
sure, but CTR for maintenance things?

Also I would put an informal 1w deadline on any pull requests after which
the committer just merges themselves.

On 4 Nov 2016 11:48 am, "Andy Seaborne" <andy@apache.org> wrote:

> There are two styles
> CTR - "Commit then review" -- its still up for review
> RTC - "Review then commit"
> and hybrid forms such as committers doing CTR for small, "obvious" things
> (e.g. "Doh!" bug fixes; emergency repair) and RTC via PR when larger or the
> committer is seeking review.
>         Andy
> On 04/11/16 04:11, Thilina Manamgoda wrote:
>> HI,
>> I think this is a good idea. There may be mistakes in my code because
>> still  i am not a expert thus code review is a good approach.
>> Regards,
>> Thilina
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Ian Dunlop <ianwdunlop@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>> I think we need a policy decision on how to add new code to existing
>>> projects. Apache Taverna commiters can just merge straight into master
>>> but perhaps we should have a policy of using pull requests so that we
>>> can review the code first. It might mean there is a slight overhead but
>>> maybe long term it means we get better code out of it. Myself and Sagar
>>> were just having a chat about this with respect to the TavMob project so
>>> it might not be appropriate for every repo.
>>> Discuss.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ian

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