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.
> >
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
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.
>
>
>
> > 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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
Nicely worded. It doesn’t go as far as I’d like, but it’s a step.
11 matches
Mail list logo
