I lean towards just needing a +1 to commit and still doing that myself.
Just need to be clear however is decided.
Ellison Anne Williams wrote:
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<t.p.elli...@gmail.com> 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
