In that case Alex, could we just have a minimum of 2 people +1 it before you can commit it?
> On Feb 23, 2018, at 8:52 AM, Kalyan Kumar Kalvagadda <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Issue that you are talking about can be addressed by putting some > additional guide lines in place. > That way, as a process person who submits the patch should perform the same > 'sanity check' before committing. > Having another person responsible for sanity and commit complicates things. > > -Kalyan > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> For assigning committers I think this may be a simple informal request - >> for example to one of the reviewers or to someone else to volunteer. It may >> delay commits a bit indeed, but I don't think it will be a problem. >> >> The problem I am trying to address is the quality of the review process. >> Suppose we have some change C for which Alice have some comments and Bob >> have some and eventually Alice says Ship it and it isn't clear whether Bob >> is Ok with the change or not, but since ALice is the committer, the author >> of the patch thinks that it is ok to submit it right away. That's where a >> 'sanity check' person would be useful. >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Sergio Pena <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> How is this committer going to be assigned? >>> This might lead to some complications if the committer assigned leave for >>> vacations afterward and the community is not notified. It will end up >>> delaying the commits and the author (being a committer) won't be able to >>> commit the patch due to this process. What are we trying to solve with >>> this? >>> >>> Btw, I've seen in other projects that some committers usually wait 1 or 2 >>> days to commit a patch after a +1 has been done on it. This is to allow >>> other reviewers to disagree with the +1 and give more feedback before >>> committing the patch. Would this help? >>> >>> - Sergio >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Stephen Moist <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Sounds reasonable to me as long as they can get someone to do the >> commit >>>> in a reasonable timeframe. I wouldn’t want to have to wait days for it >>> to >>>> get in after it has been properly reviewed. >>>> >>>>> On Feb 22, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <[email protected] >>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to propose an adjustment to the commit process in Sentry >>>>> project. The idea is to require that commit should not be done by the >>>>> person providing the change but by some other committer. This >>> committer's >>>>> responsibility is to ensure that all code review concerns were >>> addressed >>>> in >>>>> one way or another and to do a final sanity check. This committer can >>> be >>>>> one of the reviewers or someone who didn't review the code. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> - Alex >>>> >>>> >>> >>
