Interesting, Todd, can you identify which of your three arguments for CTR are not present in RTC.
Ross -----Original Message----- From: Todd Lipcon [mailto:t...@cloudera.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:23 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...) On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@apache.org> wrote: > >... > > > I think it's a _plus_ that contributors and committers contribute > > code in the same way -- it's more of a level playing field for new > > people contributing to the project. > > > > "level playing field"?? seriously?? > > I find no logical or valid reasoning to drag committers down to the > same level as drive-by contributors. > I gave the logical and valid reasoning in previous posts in this thread: 1) no matter how seasoned a committer you are, you might make mistakes which are easily caught in code review 2) no matter how good you are at coding, your code might not make sense to a second pair of eyes, who can ask you to improve comments or docs 3) no matter if your code is perfect, the act of another person reading your code builds shared ownership over the code, thus alleviating bus-factor issues and improving the general feeling of a cohesive community developing a single project instead of a loose coalition of people with their own fiefdoms. I believe this to be generally accepted in the software engineering community. I don't know practices at every company, but I know at least that most of the well-regarded technology companies I've met with have some form of pre-commit review, and certainly many highly adopted open source projects as well (especially in infrastructure software). Either a high percentage of the world does this for "no logical or valid reason" or this is just a matter of opinion, and like I said, we can agree to disagree. -Todd
