On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Paul Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> IIRC, you can skip review for committers or those with CLAs, but you do > need CLAs, etc., for web page edits so that the content can be > appropriately licensed. > Not sure what you mean by this. ASF projects generally follow either Review Then Commit (RTC) or Commit Then Review (CTR) for patches, regardless of whether or not the contributor is a committer. Neither RTC nor CTR depends on CLAs. RTC requires a review from another contributor (generally a committer) before a committer can commit the patch. CTR allows committers to commit patches without another reviewer under the expectation that should something be wrong with the patch, it'll be reverted quickly. Either approach is fine, though RTC is generally (universally?) used in the Hadoop/Big Data Apache ecosystem. Other projects, most notably httpd, get along well with CTR. The project's web site, however, in my experience, has been exempt from RTC even though it's checked into the source code. With Subversion and Shame*, it's easy enough to fix the website quickly. Either approach is fine, it just needs to be applied fairly and consistently. As part of the incubation, the emerging Samza community can decide which it would like to use and codify it into bylaws. My personal preference is for RTC. -Jakob * Yes, I know we're using git, but this is alliterative.
