On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 03:53:17PM +0100, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote: > On Thursday 24. January 2013 14.49.33 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > I think it's reasonable to expect that people exercise their approver > > > rights with care, and only use it were appropriate. > > > > > > > one would think so. but we did already see things go wrong because > > approvers made assumptions about "trivial" things in projects they are > > not involved in. > > Oh, it is easy to invalidate such argument, I haven't seen such > situation, > so "we" don't work here. > "several people in the project" is suffiecient to satisfy "we".
> Stats are welcome. > the stats *i* can deliver are the one or two cases i've seen in creator. > Anyway I took freedom of accepting patches in different areas. > Sometimes because they were easy sometimes because there was no one > willing to look at them. Your comment is suggesting that it is > something wrong, but it is not. I agree with Kai we need to trust that > people will do the right things if not... then git revert is not that > hard. > the changes may be as easy as they get. part of your responsibility as an approver is minimizing disturbances of process, in particular violations of policy, which includes minimizing cherry-picks (and thus also reverts, as these are just inverse cherry-picks). how can you do that when you are not familiar with the project to start with? right, you can't. putting a technical barrier there just makes it explicit: stop here, you need to educate yourself before you are trusted. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
