To reiterate, currently there is no requirement for committers to review a contribution. The policy is worded quite precisely: at least one *contributor* must review a change, and at least two committers must approve the change (one of whom may be the author).
The approval may consist of trust that the contributor's experience is appropriate for the patch in question. I am open to the thrust of the refinement, but it would be confusing if we introduce requirements that are inconsistent with those we already have. On 2026/09/24 19:44:34 Caleb Rackliffe 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. >
