Revised:
+1 at least until new CI is implemented. Then reevaluate. On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 1:07 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 12:52 PM Zha, Sheng <zhash...@amazon.com> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Best regards, >> -sz >> >> On 11/19/17, 12:51 PM, "Eric Xie" <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> I'm starting this thread to vote on turning off protected master. The >> reasons are: >> >> 1. Since we turned on protected master pending PRs has grown from 40 >> to 80. It is severely slowing down development. >> >> 2. Committers, not CI, are ultimately responsible for the code they >> merge. You should only override the CI when you are very confident that CI >> is the problem, not your code. If it turns out you are wrong, you should >> fix it ASAP. This is the bare minimum requirement for all committers: BE >> RESPONSIBLE. >> >> I'm aware of the argument for using protected master: It make sure >> that master is stable. >> >> Well, master will be most stable if we stop adding any commits to it. >> But that's not what we want is it? >> >> Protected master hardly adds any stability. The faulty tests that >> breaks master at random got merged into master because they happened to >> succeed once. >> >> Thanks, >> Junyuan Xie >> >> >> >>
