Lets recall that 'review' is not just about trust (or whether or not it exists), it's also about this little thing called *oversight*. It's to ensure that at least 3 people are engaged enough to be able to not only vet the code/patch/whatever, but to make sure that should the original patch provider drop out of sight, that there are enough people around to keep that code up-to-date.
As Joe sez, this whole discussion seems weird to me. httpd (for example) uses RTC, CTR and Lazy Consensus simultaneously and works like a dream. And considering that httpd is pretty much the "standard" or "basis" for the Apache Way (or, at least one of the main ones), any suggestion that one of these methods is broken, or whatever, seems wonky. > On Nov 17, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> Certainly we need both a >> Review and a Commit and one must be done before the other, >> right? >> > > Well, not necessarily. We need a commit. The review is, strictly > speaking, optional. That means that the three choices are C, RTC, CTR. The > empty string is plausible, but implies a dead community. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
