On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 5:15 PM Tiago Medicci Serrano
<tiago.medi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, rewriting 19:
>
> *19.* A PR may be *eligible* to be merged under the concept of *Lazy
> consensus* with the following conditions:
>           - It affects only a single chip or board (no
> kernel/libs/upper-half drivers etc);
>           - It implements a new feature (or app) that doesn't introduce any
> breaking changes or backward incompatibility;
>           - It didn't get the minimum of 4 reviewers after two weeks (to be
> discussed);
>             - At least one independent reviewer reviewed it;
>           - It adheres to all other conditions.
>         The PR's author should:
>           - After a week (to be discussed) without any reviewers, send an
> e-mail to the mailing list asking for more people to review it;
>           - Explain why the PR can't be split into smaller PRs (if
> applicable);
>           - Ask for the independent reviewer to merge it after two weeks
> without any other reviewers;
>         *The (required) independent reviewer* is responsible for checking
> if the PR matches the *Lazy Consensus* conditions and merging it.

-1: Still, sorry, I think this is too complex, contradicts idea 14
whatever final form it will have, and may create a loophole for "bad"
code to enter the upstream that we are trying to fix right now. For
now I am on the other side of spectrum, a safe defaults, safe-open
didn't work well. I understand the reasons behind, maybe it reveals
something constructive that we need, maybe in another form, maybe not
now, for sure this idea needs more discussion :-)

-- 
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info

Reply via email to