+1 from me too on the initial proposal and the additional clarification in the follow up mail. Thanks, Caleb
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 at 17:01, Aleksey Yeshchenko via dev < [email protected]> wrote: > Sure, sounds reasonable to me, +1. > > On 24 Sep 2026, at 21:05, David Capwell via dev <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I could support this change. > > On Sep 24, 2026, at 12:46 PM, Caleb Rackliffe <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ...and fixes from committers still require a committer review, just to > remove any incentive for someone to push through silly things like ignoring > tests that indicate real problems. > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 2:44 PM Caleb Rackliffe <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I'm spinning this out of the other thread we have going right now on LLM >> usage... >> >> I'd like to propose that we slightly change the way we deal with incoming >> patches that only touch existing tests. >> >> *Current Policy (and please correct me if I've misinterpreted our current >> rules)* >> >> Fixes from non-committer contributors that only touch existing tests in >> an effort to stabilize them still require 2 committer reviewers before >> commit. >> >> *Proposed Policy* >> >> Fixes of this type from non-committer contributors only require one >> committer review. CI verification of the effectiveness of the fix is still >> required, etc. >> >> ... >> >> That's it. I'm just looking for ways to make small, reasonable changes >> that might free up committer bandwidth for some of the larger, more >> earth-shaking things happening right now. >> > > >
