+1 for RTC. For now rules to become a committer are pretty "soft", CI and JIRA processes are still changing, etc. I believe without additional control quality of our product will deteriorate in such environment.
Let's graduate first, establish development processes, define requirements to become a committer and only then start thinking about switching to CTR which is for sure more suitable for well-established TLP. On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 06:23AM, Vasilisa Sidorova wrote: > > In a perfect world I agree with Brane. > > > > But there is top class from each igniter to trust each others on the > 1000% > > and always to be ready that something go sideways. This process take > time. > > Actually, no one is talking about 100% trust. That's why post-commit > reviews > are welcome, and reverts aren't removed from the table as a faculty of last > resort. > > We are talking about trusting a committer not to do silly things that break > the master. People will be making mistakes anyway; reviewers are people too > and will be making mistakes as well. There's no way to stop it: but > there're > ways to mitigate the harm and to make sure bad commits are few and far > apart. > > Cos > > > So I think that our Jira process should be flexible because Ignite is > young > > project. > > > > As a first step we can get together to commit simple fixes without review > > and take as a "simple" issues in Jira with "trivial" priority. > > > > When our community credit of trust will grows up we can review Jira > process > > and decide to take as a "simple" issues in Jira with "minor" priority or > > find some new solution. > > > > Etc... > > > > Regards, > > Vasilisa > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Jira-Process-tp1816p1917.html > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. >
