Sure, sounds reasonable to me, +1.
> On 24 Sep 2026, at 21:05, David Capwell via dev <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> I could support this change.
>
>> On Sep 24, 2026, at 12:46 PM, Caleb Rackliffe <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...and fixes from committers still require a committer review, just to
>> remove any incentive for someone to push through silly things like ignoring
>> tests that indicate real problems.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 2:44 PM Caleb Rackliffe <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> I'm spinning this out of the other thread we have going right now on LLM
>>> usage...
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose that we slightly change the way we deal with incoming
>>> patches that only touch existing tests.
>>>
>>> Current Policy (and please correct me if I've misinterpreted our current
>>> rules)
>>>
>>> Fixes from non-committer contributors that only touch existing tests in an
>>> effort to stabilize them still require 2 committer reviewers before commit.
>>>
>>> Proposed Policy
>>>
>>> Fixes of this type from non-committer contributors only require one
>>> committer review. CI verification of the effectiveness of the fix is still
>>> required, etc.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> That's it. I'm just looking for ways to make small, reasonable changes that
>>> might free up committer bandwidth for some of the larger, more
>>> earth-shaking things happening right now.
>
