On 07/09/14 23:43, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
## avoiding collaboration between bad actors
>The two core requirement means that it takes three people (proposer +
>2 core) to collaborate on landing something inappropriate (whether its
>half baked, a misfeature, whatever). Thats only 50% harder than 2
>people (proposer + 1 core) and its still not really a high bar to
>meet. Further, we can revert things.
Solid assessment. I tend to agree with this point. If you are going to have bad 
actors try and get code in you will have bad actors trying to get code in. The 
real question is: how many (if any) extra reverts will be needed in the case of 
bad actors? My guess is 1 per bad actor (which that actor is likely no longer 
going to be core), if there are even any bad actors out there.

I think this misses the point, which isn't so much to prevent bad actors (and I don't think we have any of those). It's to protect good (and sometimes maybe slightly misguided) actors from any perception that they might be behaving as bad actors.

I think Rob missed another possible benefit off the list: it allows us to add core team members more aggressively than we might if adding someone meant allowing them to approve patches by themselves.

I'm not convinced that dropping the 2 x +2 is the right trade-off, though I would definitely support more official documentation of the wiggle room available for reviewer discretion, such as what Flavio suggested. In Heat we agreed on a policy of allowing immediate approval in the case where you're effectively reviewing a rebase of or a minor fix to a patchset that already had the assent in principle of two core reviewers. I rarely see anyone actually do it though, I think in part because the OpenStack-wide documentation makes it sound very naughty. I was interested to learn from this thread that many programs appear to have informally instituted something similar.


OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to