On 12/14/2015 11:15 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote: > Guys, > > I can see Daan fixed the build and am happy he cares so much about that. But > I don't see why we had to do it like this, instead of reverting the PR that > caused the build to fail? That's something one can do quickly without review. > > Now the mess is complete. A broken PR merged (can happen), another PR merged > without proper review, a revert of this PR and finally a direct commit to > master. Pffff. I think all of us agree we don't want any of this. > > Most people are often online, ping them for instant review. Works almost all > of the time. >
Indeed. Use Slack/IRC/Phones or what ever suites. Talk and resolve these things. Wido > Regard, Remi > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 14 Dec 2015, at 17:41, Daan Hoogland <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> You have been doing this blindly and I don't accept this >> I have applied the mentioned code directly to master. Next time first see >> if you can add your lgtm and whether the code is needed. >> >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Boris Schrijver <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Just to make this clear once more. A PR needs two LGTM's. One of them >>> needs to >>> run the integration- and unit-tests. While the other does code review. >>> >>> This is a the minimal requirement. More is always welcome, anything less >>> will be >>> reverted. >>> >>> I just enforced this policy [1]. Any active committer has at all times the >>> right >>> to do so. >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/commit/a00fef8c332ebaede32c46cbf3065f4acaa91f02 >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, >>> >>> Boris Schrijver >>> >>> PCextreme B.V. >>> >>> http://www.pcextreme.nl/contact >>> Tel direct: +31 (0) 118 700 215 >> >> >> >> -- >> Daan
