This was raised on a recent PR commit; bringing it here for discussion: It's my understanding the members of the PMC (Tim, Suneel, etc) are also committers and able to perform a review in a RTC scenario.
Thoughts? On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >>
