Trick question, as I'd never work under that model :-) Apache Subversion is CTR, with a very low bar to get commit access to portions of the tree or a branch (only PMC members get access to whole tree, so we grant full access and PMC membership simultaneously). We don't need a fancy label for "contributor who is a committer" because such a concept is anathema to the Subversion community's peer respect model.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > Greg, which of these do you use when the “contributor” is a committer? > Remember the model here is that the author is never allowed to commit their > own code. > > Ralph > > > On Nov 19, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The Apache Subversion project does something similar: > > > > > http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/conventions.html#crediting > > > > We have a tool ("contribulyzer") that analyzes them. It's pretty neat. > > On Nov 19, 2015 1:57 PM, "Chris Nauroth" <cnaur...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: > > > >> Some projects use the git Signed-off-by field in the commit log to > >> differentiate the author from the reviewer. > >> > >> --Chris Nauroth > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 11/19/15, 10:58 AM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> And there is another problem I have. Maybe it isn¹t true of all > projects, > >>> but the one I am involved with says the author can¹t 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 isn¹t 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 > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
