On Aug 25, 2012, at 5:33 PM, ext Richard Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25 August 2012 08:27, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: >> On quinta-feira, 23 de agosto de 2012 16.14.25, Thiago Macieira wrote: >>> Hello >>> >>> I'd like to offer the a clarification and request one change to the commit >>> policy regarding the maintainer's privilege. See >>> http://qt-project.org/wiki/Commit_Policy (point 12) >>> >>> http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2012-April/002930.html >>> >>> The policy says: >>> 12.1 Maintainer privilege: A maintainer may approve his own change to the >>> code he maintains if >>> - at least one review (+1) from somebody else is present, and >>> - nobody else who could approve (+2) the change can be produced within >>> reasonable time >>> >>> I'd like a clarification that a Maintainer should not override -1 comments >>> without addressing them and giving the commenter time to react within >>> reasonable time. >>> >>> And that reasonable time is several days, preferably over a week. (From >>> experience, I sometimes only have time to drain my backlog of review >>> requests during the weekend) At first I thought a week is to long, but I now tend to agree. If the change is more urgent to get in, you can always poke the person that gave the -1 or try to get a second opinion from someone else (ie. a -1 should not block a +2 from a different Approver/Maintainer). >>> >>> Finally, I'd also like to ask a change, that a Maintainer may self-approve a >>> change even if there are no +1s at all, provided that there are no -1s >>> either, and provided that the Maintainer post to the mailing list asking >>> about it and there are still no positive reviews after reasonable time. I'd turn the last one around: Provided there are no negative reviews after a reasonable time he can submit. If you get a positive one, you can obviously go ahead immediately. I agree to it if the last sentence gets fixed as indicated above. Cheers, Lars >> >> Reminder to discussion: >> >> does anyone have anything to add or object to the above? >> >> or agree with me? > > It seems like a reasonable clarification to me. > > Rich. > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
