How about the code change is already covered by existing tests? Not to reduce test coverage seems a more reasonable standard.
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <u...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > > > On 12/29/17 12:05, Kirk Lund wrote: > >> I think we all need to be very consistent in requiring tests with all PRs. >> This goes for committer as well as non-committer contributions. >> >> A test would both confirm the existence of the bug in the first place and >> then confirm the fix. Without such a test, any developer could come along >> later, modify the code in question and break it without ever realizing it. >> A test would protect the behavior that was fixed or introduced. >> >> Also if we are not consistent in requiring tests for all contributions, >> then contributors will learn to pick and choose which reviewers to listen >> to and which ones to ignore. >> >> I for one do not want to waste my time reviewing and requesting changes >> only to be ignored and have said PR be committed without the (justified) >> changes I've requested. >> >> >
