Guys, I can see Daan fixed the build and am happy he cares so much about that. But I don't see why we had to do it like this, instead of reverting the PR that caused the build to fail? That's something one can do quickly without review.
Now the mess is complete. A broken PR merged (can happen), another PR merged without proper review, a revert of this PR and finally a direct commit to master. Pffff. I think all of us agree we don't want any of this. Most people are often online, ping them for instant review. Works almost all of the time. Regard, Remi Sent from my iPhone > On 14 Dec 2015, at 17:41, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You have been doing this blindly and I don't accept this > I have applied the mentioned code directly to master. Next time first see > if you can add your lgtm and whether the code is needed. > >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Boris Schrijver <bo...@pcextreme.nl> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Just to make this clear once more. A PR needs two LGTM's. One of them >> needs to >> run the integration- and unit-tests. While the other does code review. >> >> This is a the minimal requirement. More is always welcome, anything less >> will be >> reverted. >> >> I just enforced this policy [1]. Any active committer has at all times the >> right >> to do so. >> >> [1] >> >> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/commit/a00fef8c332ebaede32c46cbf3065f4acaa91f02 >> >> -- >> >> Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, >> >> Boris Schrijver >> >> PCextreme B.V. >> >> http://www.pcextreme.nl/contact >> Tel direct: +31 (0) 118 700 215 > > > > -- > Daan
