Re: Change to Subversion PMC rule for approving backports

2019-09-05 Thread Branko Čibej
On 06.09.2019 07:49, Julian Foad wrote: > > Bert Huijben wrote: >> Why just one +1? >> I like the second eye rule we currently have, so one +1 from the nominator >> and one additional eye. >> For bindings we have +- the same rule, but one of the eyes can be someone >> else than a full committer.

Re: Change to Subversion PMC rule for approving backports

2019-09-05 Thread Julian Foad
Bert Huijben wrote: > Why just one +1? > I like the second eye rule we currently have, so one +1 from the nominator > and one additional eye. > For bindings we have +- the same rule, but one of the eyes can be someone > else than a full committer. (Not sure if we still have any active partial

Re: [PATCH] test-deps += svnmover

2019-09-05 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Bert Huijben wrote on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 11:45 +00:00: > I think it can just be added to the [__ALL_TESTS__] group instead of > hardcoding it in python. That wouldn't add it to the test-deps target. > svnauthz is probably an exception as it is related to a symlink. svnauthz is not a symlink. It'

Re: [PATCH] test-deps += svnmover

2019-09-05 Thread Bert Huijben
Why can't this be fixed via the build.conf file? I think it can just be added to the [__ALL_TESTS__] group instead of hardcoding it in python. svnauthz is probably an exception as it is related to a symlink. Bert On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:24 PM Julian Foad wrote: > Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > In c

Re: Change to Subversion PMC rule for approving backports

2019-09-05 Thread Bert Huijben
Why just one +1? I like the second eye rule we currently have, so one +1 from the nominator and one additional eye. For bindings we have +- the same rule, but one of the eyes can be someone else than a full committer. (Not sure if we still have any active partial committers though) As always, f