-1 to overriding from me. The question I have here is what's the rush? Is anything ever so time-sensitive that you can't even wait the 15 minutes it takes for it to build and run unit tests? If some infrastructure problem is preventing builds or tests from completing then that should be fixed before any new changes are added, otherwise what's the point in even having the pre check-in process?
-Donal On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:44 AM Nabarun Nag <n...@apache.org> wrote: > @Aaron > It's okay to wait for at least the build, and unit tests to complete, to > cover all the bases. [There may have been commits in between which may > result in failure because of the revert] And it's not hard to get a PR > approval. > > -1 on overriding. If the infrastructure is down, which is the test > framework designed to ensure that we are not checking in unwanted changes > into Apache Geode, wait for the infrastructure to be up, get your changes > verified, get the review from a fellow committer and then check-in your > changes. > > I still don't understand why will anyone not wait for unit tests and build > to be successful. > > Regards > Nabarun Nag > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:32 AM Aaron Lindsey <alind...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > One case when it might be acceptable to overrule a PR check is reverting > a > > commit. Before the branch protection was enabled, a committer could > revert > > a commit without a PR. Now that PRs are mandatory, we have to wait for > the > > checks to run in order to revert a commit. Usually we are reverting a > > commit because it's causing problems, so I think overruling the PR checks > > may be acceptable in that case. > > > > - Aaron > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:11 AM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > > > Our new branch-protection rules can sometimes lead to unexpected > > obstacles > > > when infrastructure issues impede the intended process. Should we > > discuss > > > such cases as they come up, and should overruling the result of a PR > > check > > > ever be an option on the table? > > > > > > -Owen > > >
