geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules
Date Thu, 31 Oct 2019 18:35:52 GMT
Seems like the consensus is to make this change. I'll follow up with infra.

-Dan

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:06 AM Jason Huynh <jhuynh@pivotal.io> wrote:

> +1, thanks Dan!
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:07 AM Aaron Lindsey <alindsey@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > - Aaron
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 8:02 AM Ju@N <jujoramos@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Perfect Naba, thanks for answering this.
> > > My vote is +1 then.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:37 PM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The check box Dan is mentioning will just not invalidate any approved
> > > > review if the code is changed.
> > > > If a change is requested, the button will remain disabled.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Naba
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:27 AM Joris Melchior <jmelchior@pivotal.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:27 AM Ju@N <jujoramos@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Question: this only applies for *approvals*, not for *refusals*,
> > > > right?;
> > > > > I
> > > > > > mean, the *merge pull request* button will remain blocked if
> there
> > > were
> > > > > > some changes requested by reviewers and the author of the PR
adds
> > new
> > > > > > commits (either addressing those requested changes or not)?.
> > > > > > If the answer to the above is "yes", then +1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:44 AM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Darrel Schneider <
> > > > > dschneider@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:08 PM Owen Nichols <
> > > onichols@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 …this has already bitten me a few times
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith <
> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It seems we've configured our branch protection
rules
> such
> > > that
> > > > > > > > pushing a
> > > > > > > > > > change to a PR that has been approved invalidates
the
> > > previous
> > > > > > > > approval.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think we should turn this off - it looks
like it's an
> > > > optional
> > > > > > > > feature.
> > > > > > > > > > We should trust people to rerequest reviews
if needed.
> > Right
> > > > now
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > adding busywork for people to reapprove
minor changes
> > (Fixing
> > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > conflicts, spotless, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you all agree I'll ask infra to uncheck
"Dismiss stale
> > > pull
> > > > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > > approvals when new commits are pushed."
in our branch
> > > > protection
> > > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -Dan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ju@N
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > *Joris Melchior *
> > > > > CF Engineering
> > > > > Pivotal Toronto
> > > > > 416 877 5427
> > > > >
> > > > > “Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally
> > for
> > > > > machines to execute.” – *Hal Abelson*
> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ju@N
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message