You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@giraph.apache.org by Owen O'Malley <ow...@hortonworks.com> on 2011/08/31 15:32:46 UTC
dev process
All,
It seems that we've implicitly picked review then commit (RTC) instead of commit then review (CTR). Apache projects allow either approach and I'm fine with either. We should just state what we are doing.
I'd also like to propose that we keep a CHANGES.txt file that includes who contributed and committed each patch. I've created GIRAPH-19 to do that.
Thoughts?
-- Owen
Re: dev process
Posted by Hyunsik Choi <hy...@apache.org>.
+1 Review than commit process
--
Hyunsik Choi
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Avery Ching <ac...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> I agree that RTC is better for us, although in case of build breakage, I'm okay with CTR in that case.
>
> Avery
>
> On Aug 31, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Jakob Homan wrote:
>
>> RTC is definitely the way to go (he said with a weary sigh).
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Owen O'Malley <ow...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>> All,
>>> It seems that we've implicitly picked review then commit (RTC) instead of commit then review (CTR). Apache projects allow either approach and I'm fine with either. We should just state what we are doing.
>>> I'd also like to propose that we keep a CHANGES.txt file that includes who contributed and committed each patch. I've created GIRAPH-19 to do that.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -- Owen
>
>
Re: dev process
Posted by Avery Ching <ac...@yahoo-inc.com>.
I agree that RTC is better for us, although in case of build breakage, I'm okay with CTR in that case.
Avery
On Aug 31, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Jakob Homan wrote:
> RTC is definitely the way to go (he said with a weary sigh).
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Owen O'Malley <ow...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> All,
>> It seems that we've implicitly picked review then commit (RTC) instead of commit then review (CTR). Apache projects allow either approach and I'm fine with either. We should just state what we are doing.
>> I'd also like to propose that we keep a CHANGES.txt file that includes who contributed and committed each patch. I've created GIRAPH-19 to do that.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -- Owen
Re: dev process
Posted by Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com>.
RTC is definitely the way to go (he said with a weary sigh).
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Owen O'Malley <ow...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> All,
> It seems that we've implicitly picked review then commit (RTC) instead of commit then review (CTR). Apache projects allow either approach and I'm fine with either. We should just state what we are doing.
> I'd also like to propose that we keep a CHANGES.txt file that includes who contributed and committed each patch. I've created GIRAPH-19 to do that.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- Owen