I don't think anyone followed-up on this. I think I prefer our current
approach, where contributors provide patches, everyone is free to review and
comment on them, and commiters finally commit it. Feels a bit slower than
commit first, review second, but I think that makes it easier to
Hoss wrote:
(or in short: we're moving more towards a *true* commit and review
model)
I'm curious as to what you think are the practical implications are
for committers for this model? Do you imagine a change in the
workflow whereby we commit and then review or do we stick to the
And by break, I mean all tests pass with the possible exception of
those related to the new functionality.
Also, the example I gave about payloads is hypothetical. I'm still
going to submit a patch.
On Mar 17, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Hoss wrote:
(or in short: we're
Personally, i really like having a Jira issue number assocaited with every
commit ... and if there is a Jira issue open, attaching a patch is trivial
-- and having patches in Jira makes it a little easier for people who
really, Really, REALLY can't upgrade their version of lucene for some
strange
