On 27.07.2015 09:43, Atri Sharma wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 27.07.2015 09:36, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> We've all seen problems with bad commits. Bugs happen. If it's >>>> accidental, live with it. If it's consistent from some person, teach >>>> said person to do better. There's no reason to go all paranoid over a >>>> potential occasional bug in a commit. >>>> >>>> I mean, it's ridiculous to go all agile with sprints and scrums and CI >>>> and whatnot, and then block progress because you're afraid to trust your >>>> fellow developers to not goof off all the time. >>>> >>> Just as an observation, I don't think RTC process was slowing down >> progress >>> at Ignite as reviews usually happen pretty fast. >> They do now, when the project is fresh and the majority of active >> committers are actually not doing this in their spare time. You need to >> think ahead a bit, too. >> >> > I do see your point but I think you will agree that a pre message on > developers list is necessary giving time for potential objections.
The point is that I definitely do not agree with that. Developer receive commit notifications; that's enough of a nudge to review the commit. In my experience, prior reviews don't find any more bugs that post reviews. This assumes two preconditions: a) Design discussions and decisions are made on the dev@ list before a feature or change is made; and b) developers request a prior review when they feel it's necessary. But it should be up to the developer to make that judgement call. -- Brane
