Martin Sebor wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[...]
So I would like to propose that we all follow a relaxed form of
the Review-Then-Commit policy, where "simple" or "obviously safe"
changes be allowed to go in under the Commit-Then-Review process.
I don't think it's necessary to precisely define what "simple"
or "obviously safe" means. It's a judgment call.
I might suggest the reverse, where the tree operates under C-T-R,
with R-T-C strongly requested for all larger patches, patches which
would exhibit more complex behaviors under multiple compilers, and
certainly build system changes.
Yes, that probably makes more sense given that most of our changes
have been of this nature (small isolated patches). Thanks for the
suggestion, I'll offer it as one of the two options to vote on and
let the majority decide between the two variations on the same
theme:
1. CTR default with big/risky patches to follow RTC.
2. RTC default with simple patches to follow CTR.
Unless there's more discussion I'll get the vote going tomorrow.
Judgment calls could be quickly trained by peer feed-back. Although
we cannot precisely define what simple or obvious means in the
context of stdcxx changes, an initial period of RTC for all newcomers
-- and rusty committers as well ;-) -- would probably be beneficial.
Other than that I agree that CTR for trivial patches is good comon-
sense.
Liviu
