On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Manish Goregaokar
wrote:
> There are actually two kinds of trust involved. First is the trust to not
> botnet the CI, basically
> everyone here (at least everyone with try) has that.
>
I think there's an important trust distinction between try and core repo
acce
Bit late to the party, but I think there are a couple of core issues
causing this debate:
There are actually two kinds of trust involved. First is the trust to not
botnet the CI, basically
everyone here (at least everyone with try) has that. But that's not the
actual one being discussed
here. The
>
> >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Nicholas Nethercote <
> n.netherc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On the other hand, I'm more optimistic than bholley about the per-bug
> >> delegation. Given that it's been implemented I'd suggest using it and
> >> if reviewers do tend to forget it then consider
> On Nov 11, 2015, at 8:31 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Lars Bergstrom wrote:
> I've been assuming the only time that we would use `delegate` is for
> people like you (Bobby), whom we trust, but who have not gone through
> the process to become a Servo reviewer.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Nicholas Nethercote <
n.netherc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, I'm more optimistic than bholley about the per-bug
> delegation. Given that it's been implemented I'd suggest using it and
> if reviewers do tend to forget it then consider implementing a br
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
>
> From a project standpoint, I am trying to blaze the trail of the
> committer-but-not-reviewer role
IME having to re-get r+ every time you have a trivial merge conflict
or minor CI failure (e.g. a "tidy" failure due to trailing whitespace)
i
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Lars Bergstrom
wrote:
> I've been assuming the only time that we would use `delegate` is for
> people like you (Bobby), whom we trust, but who have not gone through
> the process to become a Servo reviewer.
Sure. From a personal standpoint, my ask here is to mak
On 12/11/15 01:22, Lars Bergstrom wrote:
the 1--2AM US Pacific slot that
appears to be both the "deadzone" for our reviewer coverage
That’s 10~11 am in my time zone. I’m generally awake at that time, feel
free to ping me on IRC if I can unblock something.
--
Simon Sapin
_
Indeed, thanks Manish!
I've been assuming the only time that we would use `delegate` is for
people like you (Bobby), whom we trust, but who have not gone through
the process to become a Servo reviewer. Honestly, I'd rather not have
this feature at all --- I would prefer that a reviewer (even if it
Thanks for working on this Manish!
As mentioned previously, I think that scoping this bit of trust to the PR
is sub-optimal. This kind of delegation is effectively unsupervised write
access to the repository, with an understanding that the committer is
trustworthy enough to ask for review on any s
10 matches
Mail list logo
