Agreed. The only downside of this is that it is very painful to merge PRs on the GitHub Apache mirror, and even more painful to backport changes.
2015-10-22 17:52 GMT+02:00 Russel Winder <[email protected]>: > On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 19:05 +0200, Thibault Kruse wrote: > > […] > > > > BTW: I prefer a model where committers are also supposed to go > > through > > pull request / review processes. I believe that does not decrease > > productivity, but has a range of beneficial effects. Becoming a > > committer should ideally just mean the ability to approve and merge > > other people's pull requests/patches. > > I suggest this is very important. The act of creating a change to the > code base is a different role to committing a change to the mainline. > People who have commit rights to the mainline should only ever be > committing pull requests that have been reviewed. > > If committers side-step the pull request phase in a project such as > Apache Groovy, then we have the situation that "all changesets are > equal, but some are more equal than others". > > -- > Russel. > > ============================================================================= > Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: > sip:[email protected] > 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] > London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder > >
