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

[Alan Alpert]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Jocelyn Turcotte
<jocelyn.turcotte at digia.com> wrote:
> 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.

I tried that ages ago (when working on examples and hitting image size
a lot): https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,30664 . Oswald (and
Lazlo) rejected it, leading to my impression that the sanity bot is
his only child.

> Cheers,
> Jocelyn "lives in Germany and now respects the rules" Turcotte

--
Alan "lives in the USA and now respects no other authority" Alpert