Hi Christopher, Christopher Baines <m...@cbaines.net> writes:
> Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes: > >> thanks for taking up this issue! I agreed with Ludovic's comments, so >> things look good now for me. A very minor point: In the section on >> "trivial" changes, I would drop this sentence (which was already there >> before): >> "This is subject to being adjusted, allowing individuals to commit directly >> on non-controversial changes on parts they’re familiar with." >> The sentence is meaningless, as everything is all the time subject to being >> adjusted; and we do not have immediate plans to adjust it. > > My reading of this line is that "adjusted" is probably not the right > word to use, but I think the intent here is to talk about how currently > it's accepted that people can and will push non-controversial changes on > parts they’re familiar with directly to master. > > I'm not sure if others read this similarly. That's how I read it as well. I like the ability for people to, at times depending on the situation, choose to push directly to fix or update something instead of going through the otherwise recommended 1 week QA/review flow. -- Thanks, Maxim
