On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Andrew McCreight
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:14 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> > On Thursday 2017-03-09 16:53 -0500, Mike Connor wrote:
> > > I've identified the following goals as critical for a responsible
> > > access policy:
> > ...
> > > - The change that gets pushed must be the same change that was
> > approved.
> > I'm curious what this goal means. In particular, does it mean that
> > you're trying to end "review+ if you make the following changes",
> > and require that reviewers re-review the revisions no matter what?
> That's what it sounds like to me. Also, a strict reading of this would
> imply that rebasing will require re-review.
On very practical grounds, I found the former unacceptable, and the latter
impractical. I already can barely keep up with my review load, and other
people who need to do a lot of reviews have similar issues and the
additional review load resulting from this is significant.
> > (If it does mean that, then that's a substantial increase on
> > reviewer load; if it doesn't, then I'm curious what definition of
> > "the same" you're using.)
> In practice, I doubt anybody will look at these re-reviews, so I'm not sure
> how much it will help our security.
I know that I will not in any real detail, even if the process forces me to
check a checkbox somewhere...