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

[Thiago Macieira]

On quinta-feira, 15 de agosto de 2013 11:05:17, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > The cost of uninformed contributors mindlessly overriding the bot
> > because they can is the same as uninformed contributors giving +1s on
> > arbitrary reviews just because they can - and this hasn't bothered me
> > that much so far.
> >
> > 
> 
> no, it's not the same. a +1 sanity is a *pass*. an (even temporarily)
> inattentive approver will not even notice that there is a problem when
> some uninformed contributor overrides the bot.
> 
> > The alternative can cost more than a few hours.
> 
> the thing is that it doesn't cost anything. the whole development
> process can be massively pipelined due to how git works.

I'm with Alan here.

The bot rarely fails. When it does, it's common to forget to go click the 
Sanity approval. I know because I've run into that. But when it happens to me, 
I can easily do it, then stage.

But I did not know that non-approvers can't do that. I already said I support 
changing the permissions and allowing everyone to override the bot, whenever 
necessary.

I do not think there will be bad side-effects. The option is not easily 
discoverable and even if it is abused, it cannot override the normal review 
process. An approver will more easily notice an override that shouldn't be 
there, as opposed to a missing override. Whenever I do notice a correct 
message from the bot, I refrain from giving +2 and post "please take care of 
the bot warnings".

-- 
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/20130815/7cbfb888/attachment.sig>