In that case Alex, could we just have a minimum of 2 people +1 it before you
can commit it?
> On Feb 23, 2018, at 8:52 AM, Kalyan Kumar Kalvagadda
> wrote:
>
> Issue that you are talking about can be addressed by putting some
> additional guide lines in place.
> That way, as a process person w
Issue that you are talking about can be addressed by putting some
additional guide lines in place.
That way, as a process person who submits the patch should perform the same
'sanity check' before committing.
Having another person responsible for sanity and commit complicates things.
-Kalyan
On T
For assigning committers I think this may be a simple informal request -
for example to one of the reviewers or to someone else to volunteer. It may
delay commits a bit indeed, but I don't think it will be a problem.
The problem I am trying to address is the quality of the review process.
Suppose
How is this committer going to be assigned?
This might lead to some complications if the committer assigned leave for
vacations afterward and the community is not notified. It will end up
delaying the commits and the author (being a committer) won't be able to
commit the patch due to this process.
Sounds reasonable to me as long as they can get someone to do the commit in a
reasonable timeframe. I wouldn’t want to have to wait days for it to get in
after it has been properly reviewed.
> On Feb 22, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Alexander Kolbasov wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I would like to pr
Hello everyone,
I would like to propose an adjustment to the commit process in Sentry
project. The idea is to require that commit should not be done by the
person providing the change but by some other committer. This committer's
responsibility is to ensure that all code review concerns were addre