chukwa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Yang <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Applying commit-then-review
Date Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:49:21 GMT
I like the current model where commit is allowed for silent consent.  I usually leave my patches
open for review for extensive period of time, and commit if no response.  For large change,
I do follow review then commit to ensure that I don't break other people's usage pattern.
 This has worked for Chukwa because there is no full time developer.  I think it is a value
added if there are full time developer that like to be more agile.  I am open to CTR.


On 9/13/10 1:14 PM, "Ariel Rabkin" <> wrote:

Our methodology is actually some hybrid; something like "wait for
potential review", then commit.  Usually I'll commit after a few days
if nobody objected or commented.  (I try to say explicitly when I'll
time out waiting for comments.)  And most of the patch review is
fairly cursory.

I agree that the full rigor of RTC is probably unnecessary.  I do like
it, however, for bigger changes, particularly those that alter the
architecture or user visible feature set.

Is it reasonable to say "for bugs, CTR is fine, and only file a JIRA
and wait for review if it's going to break something"?


On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Bernd Fondermann
<> wrote:
> Hi,
> If I understand correctly, Chukwa is following the review-then-commit
> (RTC) pattern: Before every commit, a patch gets posted to a JIRA and
> only on positive feedback it is committed.
> As far as I can see, this is inherited from Hadoop's policies.
> However, most projects at the ASF apply commit-then-review (CTR). CTR
> has the advantage of being more agile, requiring less work (creating
> issue, patch file, attaching it, waiting for feedback etc.) while
> providing full oversight:
> Every commit is reviewed by other committers after it happened, can be
> discussed, reverted, improved etc. as a 'work in progress'.
> It is best practice in CTR-mode to selectively use RTC, e.g. for big
> patches or for potentially delicate commits.
> I think Chukwa would profit from changing to CTR, so I'd like to know
> what you think about it.
> Thanks,
>   Bernd

Ari Rabkin
UC Berkeley Computer Science Department

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