[Development] Proposal: Allow contributors to +1 sanity review.

[Thiago Macieira]

On terça-feira, 13 de agosto de 2013 10:26:42, Alan Alpert wrote:
> > (or because they enjoy outsmarting the system just for the sake
> > of it, like you apparently do)
> 
> We *define* the system. The fact that I have to work around it in
> order to do my job properly shows that the system is defective and
> needs to be rectified. Lars mentioned at the contributor summit that
> we need to make the review process easier for people, and fixing the
> system to have fewer unnecessary hurdles is an obvious way to do that.
> 
> A more effective change which I recommend would be to have the bot not
> give -1 on the heuristics which are known to give false positives more
> frequently. It's enough that it provides a warning comment, allowing
> the contributors to address the issue if legitimate. But the -1 can
> also be viewed as a hint that there's relevant output, since it's so
> prominent in the gerrit interface, so the -1 isn't a problem so long
> as it doesn't slow us down.

I don't see what's wrong with the current system. Let's keep it.

The bot usually doesn't make a mistake. When it does, we can override it. 
That's why we can override it in the first place: because it sometimes makes 
mistakes.

I have overridden the bot sometimes when it complained that I used British 
English in the commit message. I know I shouldn't do that.
-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20130813/26fc2d10/attachment.sig>