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

Jocelyn Turcotte jocelyn.turcotte at digia.com
Wed Aug 14 11:56:33 CEST 2013

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:00:55AM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo <dangelog at gmail.com>wrote:
> > On 13 August 2013 23:18, Alan Alpert <416365416c at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > To be clear, this discussion is not about altering the functionality
> > > of the sanity bot. The current discussion is about the Gerrit
> > > interface to the sanity review field. If there were any use for that
> > > field other than the bot, then we wouldn't end up having the two
> > > conversations so closely tied together.
> >
> > >From another prospective: if the contributor can't approve the patch,
> > what's the point to allow him/her to override the bot's -1? If it's a
> > mistake, it can be noted in a comment, so the approver can judge it
> > and eventually override that.
> >
> Agree with Giuseppe and Kai. I also think that these decisions are
> orthogonal, and better up to an approver.

Agreed too, we already have a workaround for the ~5-20% false positives given: let the approver do it.
If the bot gives so many false positives that our workaround reveals being unefficient, then maybe it means that we should try to fix/remove the false positives and also avoid the noise.

Jocelyn "lives in Germany and now respects the rules" Turcotte

More information about the Development mailing list