+1 (but I hope it's still up to a committer to decide whether a change should need a review or not.)
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > I hate to be religious about anything, but do think that for most of the > functionality, RTC makes sense. > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I thought we were already on RTC process. > > > > What do you mean with contributors following this process? > > > > Raúl. > > On 3 Mar 2016 11:54, "Denis Magda" <dma...@gridgain.com> wrote: > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > I would propose to switch back to review-then-commit process. This > > process > > > has to be followed by both contributors and committers. > > > > > > There is a reason for this I have in mind. Ignite is a complex platform > > > with several big modules. Some of the people may be experts in module A > > > while others in module B etc. > > > If a committer, who is good in module A, makes changes in module B > > merging > > > the changes without a review this can break module's B internal > > > functionality that the committer didn't take into account. > > > > > > My proposal is to introduce a list of maintainers for every Ignite > module > > > like it's done in Spark [1] and a rule that will require a committer to > > get > > > an approval from a module maintainer before merging changes. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > -- > > > Denis > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SPARK/Committers#Committers-ReviewProcessandMaintainers > > > > > > > > > > > >
