On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 5:15 PM Tiago Medicci Serrano <tiago.medi...@gmail.com> wrote: > So, rewriting 19: > > *19.* A PR may be *eligible* to be merged under the concept of *Lazy > consensus* with the following conditions: > - It affects only a single chip or board (no > kernel/libs/upper-half drivers etc); > - It implements a new feature (or app) that doesn't introduce any > breaking changes or backward incompatibility; > - It didn't get the minimum of 4 reviewers after two weeks (to be > discussed); > - At least one independent reviewer reviewed it; > - It adheres to all other conditions. > The PR's author should: > - After a week (to be discussed) without any reviewers, send an > e-mail to the mailing list asking for more people to review it; > - Explain why the PR can't be split into smaller PRs (if > applicable); > - Ask for the independent reviewer to merge it after two weeks > without any other reviewers; > *The (required) independent reviewer* is responsible for checking > if the PR matches the *Lazy Consensus* conditions and merging it.
-1: Still, sorry, I think this is too complex, contradicts idea 14 whatever final form it will have, and may create a loophole for "bad" code to enter the upstream that we are trying to fix right now. For now I am on the other side of spectrum, a safe defaults, safe-open didn't work well. I understand the reasons behind, maybe it reveals something constructive that we need, maybe in another form, maybe not now, for sure this idea needs more discussion :-) -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
