The Different Development Modes

This page is definitely in-progress.

Commit-Then-Review

C-T-R mode is short for "[http://incubator.apache.org/learn/glossary.html#CommitThenReview Commit-then-Review]". This is the standard development mode that we are in. It means that developers may commit patches to the development tree without the code/rules/etc being reviewed by other developers first. Typically HEAD/trunk is in C-T-R mode until a new release is approaching. We then switch to R-T-C mode (see below) for the final development up to release.

Review-Then-Commit

R-T-C mode is short for "[http://incubator.apache.org/learn/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit Review-then-Commit]".

Non-trivial patches (see below for a definition of what's considered a 'trivial' change) must be reviewed by committers, and need consensus approval before being committed into the development tree. This is done by opening a Bugzilla ticket, setting the Target Milestone to the correct release version of the tree, attaching the suggested patch to the ticket via the web interface, and putting the ticket in "review" status (indicated by adding [review] as a prefix to the ticket summary).

The patch is then [http://incubator.apache.org/learn/voting.html voted] upon, and if gets a [http://incubator.apache.org/learn/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval consensus approval] and is not [http://incubator.apache.org/learn/glossary.html#Veto vetoed], can be applied to the tree. Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 24 hours to provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate regardless of their geographic locations. "Consensus approval" refers to a vote which has completed with at least three binding +1 votes and no -1 vetos.

The author of a patch is allowed to vote as long as they're a committer. Typically, if a committer uploaded the patch, it's assumed they're implicitly voting +1 on their own patch, unless otherwise specified.

Trivial Patches: When R-T-C is Optional

Trivial patches include:

• documentation
• finishing off pre-existing T_ tests
• changes to sandbox rules
• non-controversial non-semantic style changes (fixing indentation, adding comments, but not actual code)
• very simple, non-controversial, and absolutely safe bug fixes (i.e.: removing repetitive my() enclosing sections)
  

These can be applied without a vote.

Time Delays for Code Modifications

Votes should generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to provide an opportunity for all concerned persons to participate regardless of their geographic locations.

(Since it does say "generally", it seems reasonable exceptions to the 72 hour rule are allowed if you specify such in your vote, but let's always allow at least 24 hours or at least 48 hours if the weekend is involved. Remember, though, that if someone later vetos with a technical explanation, then the code gets pulled.)

And please don't vote +1 unless you actually did something to check the patch. That means some form of testing or code review. You do not necessarily need to apply the patch to your local copy of SA, but do take a look at it before voting +1.

Running 'make test'

'make test' should be run before committing anything, unless the change doesn't modify the code in any way (such as a documentation change). If you check in something that breaks 'make test', you have Done A Bad Thing.

If you send out a patch for C-T-R, and your patch manages to break 'make test' on its own (ie. not through interaction with other current review patches), that is Also Bad.

Reverting Code, and Vetoing

To veto code, you must issue an explicit -1 veto in a bug or in a reply to the check-in on the spamassassin-dev mailing list. If the veto is for a security-related fix, you may veto on a private forum. In addition, the veto must be accompanied with a technical reason. Vetos should be avoided for purely procedural reasons. If you are vetoing code, it is considered polite to allow the author an opportunity to respond or revert the code themselves, but it is not quite as imperative to wait if the change is very broken and fixing it would require significantly more effort than reverting it.