I have (more than once) committed docs changes for typo fixes without review. I generally label the commits with a bold "Commit then Review" message. But, I am bringing this up as I have purposely not followed what looks to be a positively-received proposed policy, since I have not gotten reviews. If all feel that we need a rule for everyone to follow (instead of a guideline that PRs shall have at least 1 review), I will follow the rule, but I'm a -0 on the process. I get it, and I understand its purpose and intent, but I personally prefer to trust that each comitter takes personal responsibility for the code they commit WRT waiting for tests and/or obtaining reviews. Karen
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 6:24 AM Joris Melchior <jmelch...@pivotal.io> wrote: > +1 to the revised approach. I think requiring at least one review is > important. More eyes make for better code. > > Cheers, Joris. > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 8:11 AM Ju@N <jujora...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +10 to Naba's proposal, it seems the right thing to do and will help us > to > > prevent accidentally breaking *develop* while keeping focus on people > > instead of processes. > > I'd add, however, that the *Merge Pull Request* button should remain > > disabled until *all CIs have finished*, and only enable it once the > *Build, > > Unit, Stress Tests and LGTM are green *(that is, force the committer to > > wait at least until all CIs are done)*. *I also agree in that that we > > should require *at least one* official approval. > > Cheers. > > > > > -- > *Joris Melchior * > CF Engineering > Pivotal Toronto > 416 877 5427 > > “Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for > machines to execute.” – *Hal Abelson* > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson> >
