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

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

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 ...