On terça-feira, 13 de agosto de 2013 10:26:42, Alan Alpert wrote: > > (or because they enjoy outsmarting the system just for the sake > > of it, like you apparently do) > > We *define* the system. The fact that I have to work around it in > order to do my job properly shows that the system is defective and > needs to be rectified. Lars mentioned at the contributor summit that > we need to make the review process easier for people, and fixing the > system to have fewer unnecessary hurdles is an obvious way to do that. > > A more effective change which I recommend would be to have the bot not > give -1 on the heuristics which are known to give false positives more > frequently. It's enough that it provides a warning comment, allowing > the contributors to address the issue if legitimate. But the -1 can > also be viewed as a hint that there's relevant output, since it's so > prominent in the gerrit interface, so the -1 isn't a problem so long > as it doesn't slow us down.
I don't see what's wrong with the current system. Let's keep it. The bot usually doesn't make a mistake. When it does, we can override it. That's why we can override it in the first place: because it sometimes makes mistakes. I have overridden the bot sometimes when it complained that I used British English in the commit message. I know I shouldn't do that. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
