incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)
Date Mon, 23 Nov 2015 10:20:11 GMT
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Reynold Xin <rxin@apache.org> wrote:

> Most non-trivial software projects I worked on (paid or un-paid) have RTC
> culture. I cannot represent every single project, but in the ones that I'm
> closely involved with that use RTC, it is simply part of the culture and
> recognition that mandatory code review improves code quality. (We can
> debate about this in a separate thread, since this is not what this thread
> is about.)
>

Quality has been debated in this thread. "R" stands for Review, and it
occurs in both models. There is no basis for saying that RTC produces
better quality.


> I don't think we should elevate everything to "Apache Way", "trust", or
> "community building". RTC vs CTR is not about:
>
> 1. Apache Way
>
> Given ASF doesn't require RTC vs CTR vs somewhere in between, and different
> TLPs already follow different ways, I don't think any mentor or the
> incubator should force their view upon incubating projects.
>

Nobody is forcing anything.

Personally, I am saying RTC is destructive, and am willing to give every
podling that message.


> 2. Trust
>
> It's just part of a project's process and culture. Greg brought up that RTC
> is an indication of lack of trust and committers are just treated as normal
> contributors: "What I haven't seen is an explanation why a committer must
> be treated the same as a drive-by. Both are subject to requiring
> 'permission' to make even the simplest of changes under RTC."
>
> Committers are required to use JIRA, github, and follow many other
> processes that "drive-by" should follow. I don't see why "code review" is
> different from filing JIRA tickets. In most RTC projects, committers do
> have more rights -- a committer can review somebody else's patch and commit
> it.
>

Please see Branko's note. Committers in an RTC project are disrespected.
They have no more regard than drive-by contributors.


> 3. community building
>
> Lots of successful open source projects, both inside and outside ASF,
> employ RTC. As Todd mentioned, almost all the top 10 most starred (on
> github) projects use some form of RTC, so it is hard for me to believe that
> RTC would hinder community building. Of course, one can always argue that
> if those projects had employed CTR, maybe they would've been even more
> popular. But then we got into the area that we just have to agree to
> disagree.
>

Well, you could also look at openhub.net:
https://www.openhub.net/orgs/apache ... I believe those top 10 are *all*
CTR. ... in fact, of ALL projects tracked by openhub, httpd and svn are #2
and #4 respectively[*]. They are models of communities where trust rules
and CTR is the basis of operation.

Using GitHub as a proxy for evaluation skews towards git-based projects,
whereas openhub is tool independent.

-g

[*] #1 and #3 are Firefox and MySQL, which are both corporate driven; our
CTR/RTC model does not apply; #5 is PHP which seems to use CTR.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message