I believe few of the committers voted -1 and those who favored they have put pre-condition. As mentioned before and mentioning again without protected master it will be hard to debug the build failure. And I am sure everyone here is aware of the challenges which CI faces every day, not having protected master makes it more difficult.
-Gautam On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Eric Xie <[email protected]> wrote: > Since committers voted for +1. We consider this vote passed. > > Thanks, > Eric > > > > On 2017-11-19 12:51, "Eric Xie"<[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm starting this thread to vote on turning off protected master. The > reasons are: > > > > 1. Since we turned on protected master pending PRs has grown from 40 to > 80. It is severely slowing down development. > > > > 2. Committers, not CI, are ultimately responsible for the code they > merge. You should only override the CI when you are very confident that CI > is the problem, not your code. If it turns out you are wrong, you should > fix it ASAP. This is the bare minimum requirement for all committers: BE > RESPONSIBLE. > > > > I'm aware of the argument for using protected master: It make sure that > master is stable. > > > > Well, master will be most stable if we stop adding any commits to it. > But that's not what we want is it? > > > > Protected master hardly adds any stability. The faulty tests that breaks > master at random got merged into master because they happened to succeed > once. > > > > Thanks, > > Junyuan Xie > > > -- Best Regards, Gautam Kumar
