You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bigtop.apache.org by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> on 2011/08/02 00:24:41 UTC
Review then commit, or commit then review?
So we should probably figure this out before we get any further. Are we
going to go with the review then commit model, or commit then review (i.e.,
ask permission or ask forgiveness)? Does anyone have any thoughts or
opinions on this?
A.
Re: Review then commit, or commit then review?
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>.
On 02/08/11 19:05, Peter Linnell` wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 01:57 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
>> I'm personally neutral on this. I've had more experience with
>> commit-then-review, but as Andrei pointed out, review-then-commit is more
>> common in the Hadoop world.
>>
>> I do think that at this point, when there are still fairly trivial
>> changes
>> to be made in terms of license headers, name changes, etc, that a hard
>> and
>> fast review-then-commit approach may be a little over the top. Some
>> flexibility definitely makes sense for now.
>>
CTR is far more agile and used in most other ASF projects. RTC slows
down hadoop and creates more veto conflict -it may be appropriate when
the value of HDFS is the IPO value of Facebook and others, but not for
bigtop.
Re: Review then commit, or commit then review?
Posted by Peter Linnell` <pl...@cloudera.com>.
On 08/02/2011 01:57 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
> I'm personally neutral on this. I've had more experience with
> commit-then-review, but as Andrei pointed out, review-then-commit is more
> common in the Hadoop world.
>
> I do think that at this point, when there are still fairly trivial changes
> to be made in terms of license headers, name changes, etc, that a hard and
> fast review-then-commit approach may be a little over the top. Some
> flexibility definitely makes sense for now.
>
> A.
Agreed. Let's get a first release out the door.
Peter
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Patrick Hunt<ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> for those of you new to apache comittership:
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview
>>
>> be sure the read through the committer guide as well:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/committer.html
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Andrei Savu<sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +1 for review then commit. I believe that most of the Apache (all?) do
>> this.
>>>
>>> -- Andrei Savu / andreisavu.ro
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Bayer<an...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> So we should probably figure this out before we get any further. Are we
>>>> going to go with the review then commit model, or commit then review
>> (i.e.,
>>>> ask permission or ask forgiveness)? Does anyone have any thoughts or
>>>> opinions on this?
>>>>
>>>> A.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Review then commit, or commit then review?
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
I'm personally neutral on this. I've had more experience with
commit-then-review, but as Andrei pointed out, review-then-commit is more
common in the Hadoop world.
I do think that at this point, when there are still fairly trivial changes
to be made in terms of license headers, name changes, etc, that a hard and
fast review-then-commit approach may be a little over the top. Some
flexibility definitely makes sense for now.
A.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> for those of you new to apache comittership:
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview
>
> be sure the read through the committer guide as well:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/committer.html
> http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
>
> Patrick
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 for review then commit. I believe that most of the Apache (all?) do
> this.
> >
> > -- Andrei Savu / andreisavu.ro
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> So we should probably figure this out before we get any further. Are we
> >> going to go with the review then commit model, or commit then review
> (i.e.,
> >> ask permission or ask forgiveness)? Does anyone have any thoughts or
> >> opinions on this?
> >>
> >> A.
> >>
> >
>
Re: Review then commit, or commit then review?
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
for those of you new to apache comittership:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#CommitThenReview
be sure the read through the committer guide as well:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/committer.html
http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
Patrick
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for review then commit. I believe that most of the Apache (all?) do this.
>
> -- Andrei Savu / andreisavu.ro
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So we should probably figure this out before we get any further. Are we
>> going to go with the review then commit model, or commit then review (i.e.,
>> ask permission or ask forgiveness)? Does anyone have any thoughts or
>> opinions on this?
>>
>> A.
>>
>
Re: Review then commit, or commit then review?
Posted by Andrei Savu <sa...@gmail.com>.
+1 for review then commit. I believe that most of the Apache (all?) do this.
-- Andrei Savu / andreisavu.ro
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So we should probably figure this out before we get any further. Are we
> going to go with the review then commit model, or commit then review (i.e.,
> ask permission or ask forgiveness)? Does anyone have any thoughts or
> opinions on this?
>
> A.
>