And there is another problem I have. Maybe it isn’t true of all projects, but the one I am involved with says the author can’t commit his own code. So the commit logs will not reflect who actually authored the code but who reviewed it.
I could probably tolerate RTC if I had to have the commit somewhere it could be reviewed, I had to wait for the review and fix any defects and then could commit the code myself (ideally even if no one actually reviewed it). That process isn’t really much different than what I do for my larger commits anyway. But just submitting something for review and then hoping someone reviews it and then hoping someone commits it takes all the joy out of it for me. Ralph > On Nov 19, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > Sure, that's a big problem with some RTC workflows. Using gerrit or github > PRs makes the flow much easier -- for a trivial or small patch, the sort > that a "drive-by" contributor typically contributes, there probably won't > be any review comments. So, they just push the patch for review, and they > can be out of the loop for the rest of it. If the patch requires small > revisions (eg addressing a typo or something) I think it's fine for the > reviewer to just make the change themselves and commit on behalf of the > original author to avoid the issue you've raised. Most RTC workflows permit > this kind of thing in my experience. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
