+1 I think we've been working that way informally, but it makes sense to implement a GH check. I'm assuming that the proposal is that the approval needs to come from another project committer?
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 9:09 AM Nicolas Vollmar <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 there should be one review required > > On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 at 14:52, Claude Warren, Jr > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 I didn't realize we were not working this way. ;) > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 7:10 PM Matthew Benedict de Detrich > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There were a couple of cases in the past where PR's were merged > > > accidentally without having an actual positive review. How do people > feel > > > about preventing PR's from being merged unless they have at least one > > > positive review (with no changes requested)? Note that I am > specifically > > > only asking for a positive review and not other options (such as always > > > requiring a branch to be updated with main) since due to the volume of > > pull > > > requests we have now this can become quite counter productive. > > > > > > Personally as a minimum bar I find this quite acceptable, we can always > > > increase it/add more checks later down the road as the process > progresses > > > (i.e. there is an argument for having Pekko core project have 2 > positive > > > reviews rather than one due to how critical it is). > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Matthew de Detrich > > > > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > > > > > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > > > > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > > > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > > > > > > *m:* +491603708037 > > > > > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] > > > > > >
