(Prompted by vjrj's bumping of the reviews today) Currently we are using review-then-commit, but it seems (to me) fairly rare to get a useful review from it (if anybody bothers to review at all). It also seems fairly pointless for 'simple' commits (most/all of the ones currently in the queue).
Christian has raised this before, but it hasn't really had a conclusion made about it. I feel that we would be much better served with the committers simply committing changes as-and-when (we have commit mails anyway). Though, this may seem like it presents too much risk on the committer for 'breaking' something, there is no reason 'trunk' should always be compilable. (This is what we have branches (e.g. make a 'stable'), or releases for). Perhaps the best answer is some hybrid, so that 'trivial' commits are just done, but major changes are reviewed. (Think: Commit 'improvements to logging', Review 'adding i18n support'). Can I request 'informal' votes: +1: Commit everything always. Make releases for stuff that should be compilable. +0: Commit/review hybrid -0: I don't understand/see any difference, but will defer to somebody else -1: _Always_ review everything.
