[Libreoffice] [META] nitpicking on cherry-picking review rules

Lionel Elie Mamane lionel at mamane.lu
Mon Aug 22 09:01:42 PDT 2011

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 02:24:09PM +0200, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
> On 2011-08-21 at 08:36 +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:

>> I'm unsure whether the acks needed for cherrypick are "any committer"
>> or a more restricted group, but in case it is the former: I agree that
>> commit 03e9161e2eca9d389d7ce419495538c31f6aed31 is worthwhile to
>> cherrypick for 3.4.3, as:

> Any developer counts, so you are welcome to review patches!  Only in
> this case, you are the author of the patch - a self-review does not
> count ;-)

I did not notice that Noel already counted his review as part of the
three needed, I had (wrongly) in mind that three *more* than Noel were
expected. I thought that if Noel does not count, I ought to; in other
words, it should not be the case that both the author and the person
asking for cherry-pick be excluded in the count.

Sorry for the mix-up in that; if Noel counts as one of the three, it
is reasonable that I don't, although if I had to decide on the rule,
I'd prefer "need three reviews (and author counts) PLUS the person
asking for cherry-pick", because this is more regular in the face of
the situation where the author does not agree to the cherry-pick; the
current rule basically ignores the author's "not agree", while my
amended rule expects him/her to be replaced by another developer.


More information about the LibreOffice mailing list