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

Oswald Buddenhagen oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com
Thu Aug 15 18:32:09 CEST 2013

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 07:57:26AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quinta-feira, 15 de agosto de 2013 11:05:17, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > 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.
> [...]
> 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.
ironically, you failed to respond to exactly the part of the message
that you quoted. yes, sometimes one forgets the sanity override. *what
is the actual, observable harm?*

> I do not think there will be bad side-effects.

> The option is not easily discoverable
correct - that was part of the plan.
still, it sounds a lot like security through obscurity.

> and even if it is abused, it cannot override the normal review
> process.
override, no. but people are easy to lead to wrong conclusions,
and tend to trust previous comments without checking themselves. having
to the check the box themselves is at least a minor wake-up call.

> An approver will more easily notice an override that shouldn't be
> there, as opposed to a missing override.
what makes you think so?

> Whenever I do notice a correct message from the bot, I refrain from
> giving +2 and post "please take care of the bot warnings".
that's you. and me. we are among the most attentive reviewers out there.
and still, we have failed before.

sure, the risk is low. but why change? we are talking about a corner
case here, one in which learning is a key component. i wouldn't want to
send the wrong message ...

More information about the Development mailing list