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<[email protected]> 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<[email protected]> 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<[email protected]>
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.
