A combination approach seems like it would be the best to me. Is the process you guys use documented?
As I said, the part that bothers me with the way RTC is done in the project I am involved in is that I can’t commit my own stuff. Ralph > On Nov 20, 2015, at 6:09 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > Lets recall that 'review' is not just about trust (or whether > or not it exists), it's also about this little thing called > *oversight*. It's to ensure that at least 3 people are > engaged enough to be able to not only vet the code/patch/whatever, > but to make sure that should the original patch provider > drop out of sight, that there are enough people around to > keep that code up-to-date. > > As Joe sez, this whole discussion seems weird to me. httpd > (for example) uses RTC, CTR and Lazy Consensus simultaneously > and works like a dream. And considering that httpd is pretty > much the "standard" or "basis" for the Apache Way (or, at least > one of the main ones), any suggestion that one of these methods > is broken, or whatever, seems wonky. > >> On Nov 17, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> >>> Certainly we need both a >>> Review and a Commit and one must be done before the other, >>> right? >>> >> >> Well, not necessarily. We need a commit. The review is, strictly >> speaking, optional. That means that the three choices are C, RTC, CTR. The >> empty string is plausible, but implies a dead community. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
