+1 on RTC for the reasons mentioned below.
/Johan
Jonathan Ellis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it could be tough to get Cassandra through a graduation vote
on general@ while working with RTC. I know there are some other
projects that use RTC, but its usually only for stable or release
branches isn't it?
Things seem to be going well these days, what are the issues with
trying CTR now for a while?
So I've thought about this a lot since Paul's brief objection.
Historically I have been a huge non-fan of RTC. It can slow things
down significantly with the overhead of switching between patchsets in
various stages of review.
BUT.
Git-svn makes that go away almost entirely. I am never blocking for
code to be reviewed; I just go code something else in the meantime. I
branch per-ticket so revisiting to incorporate feedback or commit is
trivial. I don't feel like I am wasting time fighting the tools like
I used to with svn. (Especially with
http://github.com/eevans/git-jira-attacher/.) All the other
committers have switched to git-svn as well.
I do think there should be room for individual discretion here. If
you have a trivial change, just commit it and be done. But in
general, I think the extra care of RTC is usually worth it for us. I
see reviews becoming a lot more perfunctory / not happening at all if
we just commit first. (Just about all my experience has been in CTR
projects, both closed and OSS. This isn't just a theoretical concern,
DESPITE the best of intentions that "we'll do reviews, promise.")
So I would argue that RTC is working for us, making sure reviews
actually happen, while git makes it mostly stay out of our way. I
_would_ be in favor of being less dogmatic about it
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-528 from earlier
today is a fine example) but in general I prefer not fixing what ain't
broke.
-Jonathan