On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> I second. > > It's up to the community to go CTR or RTC but former has a way more > flexibility and way speedier. Esp. considering that Ignite has great and > functional CI in place. We are trying to get CTR running in Bigtop, but > getting blocked by comprehensive CI being not ready yet. > The process in Ignite is that all committers work in separate branches. Committers are free to commit into their branch as often as required. However, the process that I prefer is that a review by another committer must happen before a final merge to the master takes place. In my experience, I have seen the simplest of the commits break builds or make wrong assumptions. > Please consider the consequences of the decision you're about to make. > I was hoping to arrive to a decision as a result of this discussion. > > Cos > > On July 26, 2015 11:13:40 PM PDT, "Branko Čibej" <[email protected]> wrote: > >On 27.07.2015 07:47, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 10:39 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> > >wrote: > >> > >>> On 27.07.2015 07:04, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > >>>> Igniters, > >>>> > >>>> I believe several very valid points have been made on the general@ > >list > >>>> about our Jira handling, and how we should improve our Jira > >process. > >>>> > >>>> I have tried to outline the Jira Process we should follow on our > >Wiki: > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Jira+Process > >>>> > >>>> Please review and provide comments. Let's try to finalize it within > >the > >>>> next couple of days. > >>> This describes a commit-then-review process. This is absolutely not > >what > >>> you want. There is no need to ask for patch review before > >committing; > >>> this should happen after commit. The only case where the ticket > >review > >>> stage makes sense is when someone who is not a committer is writing > >the > >>> patch; or when the committer feels she needs extra eyes on the > >change. > >>> > >> Brane, I am not sure if I understood you correctly. The process that > >I > >> would like to see in Ignite is that absolutely every ticket undergoes > >a > >> review process before it gets merged to the main master branch, > >regardless > >> of whether it is done by a committer or not. > >> > >> Are you suggesting that the review process for committers should be > >> optional? > > > >Yes of course. The default process for making changes should be: > >commit, > >then review (CTR). This means that any committer can make any change > >without asking for a review first, and other committers review the > >changes after the commit. > > > >What you're proposing is the review, then commit (RTC) process, which > >a) > >implies that you don't trust committers even for trivial changes, b) > >slows down development and c) IMO is contrary to the spirit of open > >source. A committer should know when a change really needs review > >before > >committing, otherwise you shouldn't have made her a committer in the > >first place. > > > >My point in that discussion thread is that you guys are using Jira far > >too much for trivial stuff. It's a waste of time and resources to go > >through all the Jira steps for simple changes; instead, you should > >learn > >to write descriptive commit log messages and use Jira only for tracking > >large changes or bugs that can't be addressed immediately. > > > > > >As it stands, you're proposing to change an open development process > >into a bureaucratic nightmare. Please don't. > > > >-- Brane >
