+1

Thanks,
Guangning

Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> 于2022年2月23日周三 16:01写道:

> +1
>
> Enrico
>
> Il Mer 23 Feb 2022, 07:31 PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Before I always thought it was Github added this new feature :)
> > Thanks for sharing the great knowledge.
> >
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 2:24 PM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > In my recent PR to update the `.asf.yaml` to protect release branches,
> > > I set the `dismiss_stale_reviews` to `true` for PRs targeting master
> > > branch [0]. I mistakenly thought this setting would only dismiss PRs
> > > updated by force. Instead, all approvals are dismissed when additional
> > > commits are added to the PR. The GitHub feature is documented here
> > > [1].
> > >
> > > Since the PR changed the old setting, I want to bring awareness to the
> > > change and determine our preferred behavior before changing the
> > > setting again.
> > >
> > > I think we should return to our old setting [2]. The GitHub PR history
> > > clearly shows when a contributor/committer approved a PR. I feel that
> > > it is up to the "merging" committer to give the final review of the
> > > PR's approval history before merging. Further, when dismiss stale code
> > > reviews is true, GitHub modifies previous approval "history" in the PR
> > > making it look like a reviewer never approved the PR, which I find a
> > > bit confusing.
> > >
> > > Here is a sample PR where approvals were dismissed: [3].
> > >
> > > Let me know how you think we should proceed.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/.asf.yaml#L76
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches-and-merges-in-your-repository/defining-the-mergeability-of-pull-requests/managing-a-branch-protection-rule#creating-a-branch-protection-rule
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14425
> > > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14409
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to