----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Schaefer <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 7:20:58 PM
> Subject: Re: time for a reboot?
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>
> > From: Bryan Duxbury <[email protected]>
> > To: [email protected]
> > Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 7:10:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: time for a reboot?
> >
> > I think that the problem with commit-then-review would be the same problem
> > I'm currently experiencing with our existing review-then-commit: nobody is
> > doing any reviews!
> >
> > In general, I like the review-then-commit because it keeps us from just
> > breaking stuff all over the place. I don't really buy the idea that "trunk
> > is for experimentation". A lot of the traffic that comes in is bug
reports,
> > to which I don't think it makes sense to just commit whatever someone
> > provides - we want to actually *reduce* bugs, after all. For the things
>that
> > are really experimental, I think we already do a reasonable job of getting
> > them committed in as they are partially completed. I would be happy to
>start
> > giving people more leeway to experiment in branches in the official SVN,
if
> > that would improve the situation.
> >
> > I understand that some people have been frustrated by the difficulty of
> > contributing for a variety of reasons, but I don't think that means that
we
> > should just leave the door wide open in a way that would compromise code
> > quality. I can assure you that if the only time breakages are discovered
is
> > when I'm rolling a release candidate, then releases will stop.
> >
> > What would make me incredibly happy is if I saw more comments from users
> > that contained positive or negative reviews on patches. If there's
>apparent
> > consensus on a patch, then I'm happy to commit it, but when I'm reviewing
> > tickets that have nothing but a patch and a six-word comment from the
> > contributor, particularly if it's not a language I use regularly, I feel
> > like my hands are tied.
> >
> > I agree that we should be trying to recruit more committers. I'd be fine
> > with Thrift lowering the bar as to what we consider "enough" to offer
> > committership, but I don't really think that everyone who might be offered
> > the rights would actually want them or follow through on the
> > responsibilities. There's also a lot of overhead, including a fair amount
>of
> > latency, involved in becoming a committer. I don't think that a casual
> > contributor is really going to want to fill out paper forms and then wait
> > two weeks before they can commit. It just doesn't improve their experience
> > sufficiently.
>
> I both respect and agree with your remarks. With respect to the delay
> between considering someone for committership and actually becoming one,
> it's true that it is a process that spans several days if not weeks. However
> we really aren't looking for drive-thru committers, we want people who
> will show sustained dedication to the project, spanning several months
> if not years (iow Todd's committership here so far hasn't been something
> I'd consider a success). Remember it's community over code at Apache.
>
> And review matters, absolutely right. Whether it's before the commit
> or after, it really is an essential component that cannot continue
> to be ignored. Note also that ANYONE can provide that review,
> it's not an activity limited to current committers only.
Is thrift setup for CI? Does it use either of Apache's hudson or buildbot
automated builds? Perhaps setting something like that up for trunk would
alleviate some of the concerns for code breakage due to an errant commit.
