[Development] Change / clarification to Maintainer's commit privilege

[lars.knoll at nokia.com]

On Aug 25, 2012, at 5:33 PM, ext Richard Moore <rich at kde.org> wrote:

> On 25 August 2012 08:27, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
>> On quinta-feira, 23 de agosto de 2012 16.14.25, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>> Hello
>>> 
>>> I'd like to offer the a clarification and request one change to the commit
>>> policy regarding the maintainer's privilege. See
>>>      http://qt-project.org/wiki/Commit_Policy (point 12)
>>>      http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2012-April/002930.html
>>> 
>>> The policy says:
>>> 12.1 Maintainer privilege: A maintainer may approve his own change to the
>>> code he maintains if
>>> - at least one review (+1) from somebody else is present, and
>>> - nobody else who could approve (+2) the change can be produced within
>>> reasonable time
>>> 
>>> I'd like a clarification that a Maintainer should not override -1 comments
>>> without addressing them and giving the commenter time to react within
>>> reasonable time.
>>> 
>>> And that reasonable time is several days, preferably over a week. (From
>>> experience, I sometimes only have time to drain my backlog of review
>>> requests during the weekend)

At first I thought a week is to long, but I now tend to agree. If the change is more urgent to get in, you can always poke the person that gave the -1 or try to get a second opinion from someone else (ie. a -1 should not block a +2 from a different Approver/Maintainer).
>>> 
>>> Finally, I'd also like to ask a change, that a Maintainer may self-approve a
>>> change even if there are no +1s at all, provided that there are no -1s
>>> either, and provided that the Maintainer post to the mailing list asking
>>> about it and there are still no positive reviews after reasonable time.

I'd turn the last one around: Provided there are no negative reviews after a reasonable time he can submit. If you get a positive one, you can obviously go ahead immediately.

I agree to it if the last sentence gets fixed as indicated above.

Cheers,
Lars


>> 
>> Reminder to discussion:
>> 
>> does anyone have anything to add or object to the above?
>> 
>> or agree with me?
> 
> It seems like a reasonable clarification to me.
> 
> Rich.
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development