Re: proposed change to committers policy

2019-05-24 Thread Salz, Rich
Nicely worded. It doesn’t go as far as I’d like, but it’s a step.

Re: AW: [openssl] OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable update

2019-05-24 Thread Nicola Tuveri
I have always implicitly assumed Matt view, but I am happy to conform to what the consensus is. I believe this discussion is very useful and could contribute a new entry in the commiter guidelines. Nicola On Fri, May 24, 2019, 07:21 Matt Caswell wrote: > > > On 24/05/2019 15:10, Richard

Re: No two reviewers from same company

2019-05-24 Thread Salz, Rich
> In that example the potential conflict of interest comes from the > individual's employment with the third party organisation, not because they are fellows. Do you disagree with my contention that the OMC represents the project, and not the fellows? Regardless of where the conflict

Re: AW: [openssl] OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable update

2019-05-24 Thread Matthias St. Pierre
I forgot one word: On 24.05.19 17:45, Matthias St. Pierre wrote: (Otherwise, the missing approvers need to be from the Reviewed-by list and additional approvals would be needed). need to be _removed_ from the Reviewed-by list

Re: AW: [openssl] OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable update

2019-05-24 Thread Matthias St. Pierre
On 24.05.19 16:54, Richard Levitte wrote: On Fri, 24 May 2019 16:39:51 +0200, Matt Caswell wrote: On 24/05/2019 15:30, Richard Levitte wrote: Not in practice. We *do* ask on the PR in question if it should be cherry-picked to 1.1.1 and seek approval for that action, but then it hasn't at

Re: AW: [openssl] OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable update

2019-05-24 Thread Richard Levitte
On Fri, 24 May 2019 16:39:51 +0200, Matt Caswell wrote: > > > > On 24/05/2019 15:30, Richard Levitte wrote: > > > > Not in practice. We *do* ask on the PR in question if it should be > > cherry-picked to 1.1.1 and seek approval for that action, but then it > > hasn't at all been clear what

Re: AW: [openssl] OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable update

2019-05-24 Thread Matt Caswell
On 24/05/2019 15:30, Richard Levitte wrote: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 16:20:59 +0200, > Matt Caswell wrote: >> On 24/05/2019 15:10, Richard Levitte wrote: >>> If we go with the idea that an approval also involves approving what >>> branches it goes to, then what happens if someone realises after

Re: AW: [openssl] OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable update

2019-05-24 Thread Richard Levitte
On Fri, 24 May 2019 16:20:59 +0200, Matt Caswell wrote: > On 24/05/2019 15:10, Richard Levitte wrote: > > If we go with the idea that an approval also involves approving what > > branches it goes to, then what happens if someone realises after some > > time that a set of commits (a PR) that was

AW: [openssl] OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable update

2019-05-24 Thread Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
Matt and Richard, I think you are mixing up cherry-picking and nit-picking here. (Sorry for the pun ;-) Matthias > To be picky, may I assume that you meant a reviewed-by tag for you > > should be *added*? The commit itself (its contents) having been > > reviewed by those already there, I

AW: proposed change to committers policy

2019-05-24 Thread Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
> > IMHO an important clarification needs to be made: The rule should not be > > about > > _prohibiting_ double approvals. It should only be about _counting_ them. > > I would not deprive people of the right to state their opinions. > > Isn't that an implementation detail? You're right, it

Re: proposed change to committers policy

2019-05-24 Thread Richard Levitte
On Fri, 24 May 2019 11:21:18 +0200, Matthias St. Pierre wrote: > > >   In considering approvals, the combined approvals must come > >   from individuals who work for separate organisations. > >   This condition does not apply where the organisation is the > >   OSF or OSS. > > >

Re: proposed change to committers policy

2019-05-24 Thread Tim Hudson
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:34 PM Matt Caswell wrote: > On 24/05/2019 10:28, SHANE LONTIS wrote: > > It doesn’t stop us both reviewing a PR. That doesn’t mean we both need > to approve. > > Right...but in Matthias's version if you raise a PR, and then Pauli > approves it, > then you only then need

Re: proposed change to committers policy

2019-05-24 Thread Matt Caswell
On 24/05/2019 10:28, SHANE LONTIS wrote: > It doesn’t stop us both reviewing a PR. That doesn’t mean we both need to > approve. Right...but in Matthias's version if you raise a PR, and then Pauli approves it, then you only then need to get a second committer approval. Otherwise you would need to

Re: proposed change to committers policy

2019-05-24 Thread SHANE LONTIS
It doesn’t stop us both reviewing a PR. That doesn’t mean we both need to approve. > On 24 May 2019, at 7:21 pm, Matthias St. Pierre > wrote: > > > > > In considering approvals, the combined approvals must come > > from individuals who work for separate organisations. > >