incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Nauroth <>
Subject Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)
Date Thu, 19 Nov 2015 19:57:38 GMT
Some projects use the git Signed-off-by field in the commit log to
differentiate the author from the reviewer.

--Chris Nauroth

On 11/19/15, 10:58 AM, "Ralph Goers" <> wrote:

>And there is another problem I have. Maybe it isn¹t true of all projects,
>but the one I am involved with says the author can¹t commit his own code.
>So the commit logs will not reflect who actually authored the code but
>who reviewed it. 
>I could probably tolerate RTC if I had to have the commit somewhere it
>could be reviewed, I had to wait for the review and fix any defects and
>then could commit the code myself (ideally even if no one actually
>reviewed it). That process isn¹t really much different than what I do for
>my larger commits anyway. But just submitting something for review and
>then hoping someone reviews it and then hoping someone commits it takes
>all the joy out of it for me.
>> On Nov 19, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Todd Lipcon <> wrote:
>> Sure, that's a big problem with some RTC workflows. Using gerrit or
>> PRs makes the flow much easier -- for a trivial or small patch, the sort
>> that a "drive-by" contributor typically contributes, there probably
>> be any review comments. So, they just push the patch for review, and
>> can be out of the loop for the rest of it. If the patch requires small
>> revisions (eg addressing a typo or something) I think it's fine for the
>> reviewer to just make the change themselves and commit on behalf of the
>> original author to avoid the issue you've raised. Most RTC workflows
>> this kind of thing in my experience.
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message