> but it would be confusing if we introduce requirements that are inconsistent > with those we already have. Seems like the requirements we already have are confusing to many now, given some of the chatter on the other thread.
I’m +1 to the above relaxations. On Thu, Sep 24, 2026, at 5:40 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > To reiterate, currently there is no requirement for committers to review a > contribution. The policy is worded quite precisely: at least one > *contributor* must review a change, and at least two committers must approve > the change (one of whom may be the author). > > The approval may consist of trust that the contributor's experience is > appropriate for the patch in question. > > I am open to the thrust of the refinement, but it would be confusing if we > introduce requirements that are inconsistent with those we already have. > > On 2026/09/24 19:44:34 Caleb Rackliffe 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. > > >
