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

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:26:27AM -0700, Alan Alpert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Jocelyn Turcotte <jocelyn.turcotte at digia.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
you're not getting it. the problem is *you*. when you find yourself in
constant disagreement with a system that most people find quite
palatable, it's time to check your assumptions, not to find ways how to
push through your conclusions.

i'm occasionally getting asked about the bot's behavior (sometimes in
form of suggestions how to "improve" it). most people understand the
explanations and why the chosen trade-offs are actually quite
reasonable. you seem to be the only one who is (openly) persistently
fighting it. that should make you think.