voting in gerrit: merge at +3? (+2+1 / +1+1+1)
nhofmeyr at sysmocom.de
Thu Nov 15 14:31:11 UTC 2018
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 01:15:48PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> I believe that if we're going to use tooling to support a process,
> then our tooling should be configured to support the process we want.
My point is that this tooling supports our process, no pressing need to enforce
it to the last detail.
> Social conventions will work but only with continuous effort.
I don't think that will be a problem. There are countless conventions we
enforce by social means alone. Coding style, mailing list etiquette... The
effort of communicating how we merge patches will be far less frequent than
telling people to not send screenshots of text output to the mailing list, it
doesn't happen that often that new patch submitters come along.
> The easier it is for that person to figure out answers, the better.
Sure, but trying out this scheme without the need to "hack" gerrit is
> If gerrit does something else than our process says it should,
> then gerrit makes things harder for new contributors, not easier.
If that's really necessary, new people could still get only +1 permissions and
everyone that knows what's cooking can get +2? Say, after the fifth patch you
get elevated from "known user" to "reviewer" and receive +2 permission.
So, my opinion still is we try it with gerrit as it is:
- vote with +1.
- if there are three +1s, the patch owner may apply +2 and merge.
- try this, if it doesn't work consider the plugin.
If someone wants to spend effort on installing that plugin, I would be fine
with that. I will not be that person because IMHO we don't need it. For me it's
I think my opinion is clear now and I will refrain from rephrasing it again. If
you agree please say so, so that I can configure gerrit +2 permissions. If you
disagree, as far as I'm concerned someone go on and install that plugin.
Otherwise we have stalemate and will keep the current scheme.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the OpenBSC