I don't see point in having to get a +1 from another committer for fixing trivial items such as merge conflicts, build breaks, etc. I also would through trivial updates to the website like fixing typos, broken hyperlinks, adding hyperlinks, etc.
My interpretation of RTC is that the author can commit their own changes after receiving +1 from a reviewer (another committer). On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22/07/16 05:50, Andy LoPresto wrote: > > One of the nice effects of RTC is that the community gets an > > opportunity to gently enforce code convention and prevent rapid build > > up of technical debt. Something else I've witnessed is that as the > > community grows, non-committers feel more comfortable submitting PRs > > because they've seen the same review process applied regardless of > > the submitter's status. > > > > Apologies if I missed these points on an earlier thread. > > Sure, I don't feel strongly either way -- though I would expect a > committer to be able to fix trivial items like a simple merge conflict, > or backout a build breaking change without always having to get a > backing +1 from elsewhere. > > Out of curiosity, does folks' interpretation of RTC mean that the author > never commits their own changes? i.e. the reviewer always commits (as > the original author)? > > Regards, > Tim >
