From dev-return-32554-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@geode.apache.org Fri Nov 22 20:19:57 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 123D6180629 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 21:19:56 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 82270 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2019 20:19:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geode.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@geode.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geode.apache.org Received: (qmail 82251 invoked by uid 99); 22 Nov 2019 20:19:55 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:19:55 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 66310C1DDE for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:19:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-he-de.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AzywgX9QiEER for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:19:53 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=148.163.150.38; helo=mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com; envelope-from=dsmith@pivotal.io; receiver= Received: from mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com (mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com [148.163.150.38]) by mx1-he-de.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-he-de.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 6B9EE7DD9E for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:19:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0114581.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xAMKIbET012755 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:19:50 GMT Received: from mail-ua1-f71.google.com (mail-ua1-f71.google.com [209.85.222.71]) by mx0a-00296801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2weaqpgkrx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:19:50 +0000 Received: by mail-ua1-f71.google.com with SMTP id y27so1569120uaa.3 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:19:50 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=DJiYvGdxQuUYqh+9Q5ZJtWBAgpSozx2V/889WoOfid4=; b=PnwRqTTfZDzvritviNUNEGCVZVXtKCAs93dNBLnXZ1XtThGOtKkC1SoP+Cv7oqlrQF WUduTXIKlp9lKd6zGHkDuuwk6d4yyrAZ5gqgvOHMkQd+o390qssEHIRTrh4epHH3qErv aABbQlXFQs1BV5MtVRXUIcHB/aw2NOjbeSY5MtVrO9u1KQJI2hJbPgaDIn+GmKZSWURl Ekfs+uOEgFM4gSUqHr9eBomzoSZd9bLG2tS7O/Jan1lys/jzejK3B45vgnYbA0KZZddv 74hy7Nt8g8dVKEyvKClrFOw9ATAk+HzW3h9AlWIF8Vfzh/zcsTxmHa3uG9fZbYRSJw9S aBzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUSWyfuKEylYKbJX3GkBCX6z0472HCylqh6zeDPKytQW00sVZ9i iX0ptf8fwC5Xo8g7lWXIX53x2c8LDrR9wo5d6ZBVXfmR+fk8VPY1VTQ1lBZeBhmtFZSPxlL4OJK cknSlkObvnAs9EwTzf+jMlZf2WPZyq2wO1SLotFB+QKRaBP1fCp5Hnro= X-Received: by 2002:a67:d692:: with SMTP id o18mr11849607vsj.151.1574453988928; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:19:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxZOJlSZw/QL7BmFVhLLHdONiH8aBG06ZYcLr68Dnc5olD0aNAcmfl+xJTcgsWfrbknVg+g2c14KiWgJk6GbMg= X-Received: by 2002:a67:d692:: with SMTP id o18mr11849572vsj.151.1574453988520; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:19:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4DBBA605-9EEF-4102-86F5-500FCA30D7CB@pivotal.io> <8248b10e-a135-dbd4-d867-e9fa6ae679aa@apache.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dan Smith Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:19:37 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] is overriding a PR check ever justified? To: dev@geode.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b391910597f52277" X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2019-11-22_04:2019-11-21,2019-11-22 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=3 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=716 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1911220164 --000000000000b391910597f52277 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:56 AM Owen Nichols wrote: > Tallying the votes from this thread, it looks like the majority vote is to > NEVER allow override even in extreme circumstance. > I think a better way of summarizing this thread so far is that there isn't really a consensus on this point, opinions seem to be fairly split. This wasn't a vote, and not everybody who expressed an opinion put a number next to their opinion or was directly aligned with the statement above. Maybe folks who think there should not be an override option could propose a specific process for dealing with issues like what Robert just did and try to bring the rest of us on board with that? -Dan --000000000000b391910597f52277--