@Udo- I believe that just noticing how often we have to override, might help influence what the correct decision or better yet, solution, might be. Not necessarily needing a vote email but just an email that describes why we needed to override. I think it will help us get a better understanding of when we have had to override and might show us a trend over time on what issues or areas we may better coverage in. Personally I'd prefer if we'd have to override less often and in the open when we do.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 2:02 PM Udo Kohlmeyer <u...@apache.com> wrote: > @Jason, thank you for clarification.. I just pointed out to @Naba that > it was the wrong thread. As, like in many cases, the original intent of > the thread is lost because someone has asked a question, not directly > relating to the thread and then the whole thread is derailed. > > When I asked for a vote, I was asking should we be voting on whether we > should allow overrides. It was inconclusive, with 4 against and 3 for > overrides. Which really leaves us in a position where some feel we > should allow the "break glass emergency" override of branch protection > and some don't, and the rest of the 90+ committers who don't care. > > Are you suggesting that every override now becomes a vote on the dev > list? Given that we don't have a real stance on whether we allow it or > not, maybe that is best UNTIL we hit a scenario where we cannot get > consensus on the override. > > --Udo > > On 11/22/19 1:06 PM, Jason Huynh wrote: > > @Udo - I think Naba was asking why the original commit that broke the > > pipeline wasn't detected. > > > > I think instead of a vote email, an email alerting the dev list that an > > override needs to take place is still good to have. If nothing else, to > > identify areas that we might be able to improve with additional coverage > or > > checks. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:40 PM Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlme...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > >> @Naba.. wrong thread :) > >> > >> We have real scenario here now, where we have no consensus on whether we > >> are allowed or not allowed to override.. Do we vote now? OR do we apply > >> common sense? > >> > >> TBH, at this junction we should really just do whatever we believe is > >> correct. A committer is appointed due to trust, so we should trust that > >> our committers will do the right thing. > >> > >> But the same trust that our committers would always do the right thing > >> has gotten us to this point where we don't trust.... > >> > >> MUCH bigger chicken-and-egg problem. > >> > >> I motion that we vote on this. I would also like to request all those > >> AGAINST the override to provide strategies for us to not shoot-ourselves > >> in the foot. (like Dan said) > >> > >> --Udo > >> > >> On 11/22/19 12:30 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote: > >>> Just out of curiosity, why did the PR checks for GEODE-7488 not fail > and > >>> allowed it be merged? Is something lacking in our testing? > >>> > >>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:19 PM Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:56 AM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> > >> wrote: > >>>>> Tallying the votes from this thread, it looks like the majority vote > is > >>>> to > >>>>> NEVER allow override even in extreme circumstance. > >>>>> > >>>> I think a better way of summarizing this thread so far is that there > >> isn't > >>>> really a consensus on this point, opinions seem to be fairly split. > This > >>>> wasn't a vote, and not everybody who expressed an opinion put a number > >> next > >>>> to their opinion or was directly aligned with the statement above. > >>>> > >>>> Maybe folks who think there should not be an override option could > >> propose > >>>> a specific process for dealing with issues like what Robert just did > and > >>>> try to bring the rest of us on board with that? > >>>> > >>>> -Dan > >>>> >
