Bertrand,
Thank you for the article. I’ve never heard this term before.
My favorite bullet point from the first article is:
- Radiating intent shows others that adventurous behavior is acceptable
in the org.
I learned something new today. +1 to you, sir.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:3
I agree with the fact that ctr can be a very effective way of pushing
forward. Ok for me to allow it, it is then to the pr author to consider
when he feels that a review is required before merging.
I'm really not used to this way, it will be interesting to see how this
performs ;)
Andrea
On Wed,
Thanks a lot for all your feedback.
Josh, your idea is balanced. Opening the PR and tagging reviewers leaves the
opportunity to comment or to object to a change.
The branch protection rules have been disabled.
Bertil
> On 16 Nov 2022, at 09:33, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Josh Fi
Hi,
Josh Fischer wrote:
> ...I do find it helpful if I leave a PR open for 12-24
> hours to people a chance to make any comments before we merge...
+1, that's a great way of "radiating intent" [1], leaving a chance for
others to object without slowing down too much.
-Bertrand
[1]
https://medi
I’m fine either way. I do find it helpful if I leave a PR open for 12-24
hours to people a chance to make any comments before we merge. But then
again waiting can be a bit progress killer at times.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 2:16 PM Julian Hyde wrote:
> The "CTR vs RTC" discussion is an importa
The "CTR vs RTC" discussion is an important one for a community to
have. In my opinion, there's no easy answer. (I'm basically agreeing
with Bertrand here.) It is certainly useful to have a default process,
and that default process should probably be RTC. But also develop
trust so that people who h
Thank you Andrea and Bertrand for your answers.
I agree with you Andrea, it is a good practice to have several people reviewing
PRs. The problem right now is that a lot of small changes are required to make
progress on the first release. Some of these changes need to be in main in
order to be t
Hi,
Bertil Chapuis wrote:
> ...Do you think we should relax the current policy and disable the review
> requirement?...
I think it's good for the project to define whether it wants to
operate in CTR or RTC mode (Commit-Then-Review or Review-Then-Commit,
[1])
IMO declaring CTR generally (which
Hi Bertil,
I know that I am not reviewing much these days so my voice probably doesn't
count much as I am a bit of a bottleneck potentially, but I am in principle
against a no review policy, even for trivial stuff.
The main reason being that there should be always at least 2 people aware
of some c
