On 3/13/17 1:33 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Actually, I wish I had written this differently. Say I get an r+ w/o nits,
> I suspect
> that the sheriffs will accept an updated patch (e.g., ostensibly with a
> comment fix) that is marked r=.
This seems entirely too plausible. :(
> Me too. And I think "trust" in this case at least arguably should be
> defined as
> "trusted by Mozilla" (e.g., L3 committer). So, one possibility would be
> have a
> policy like the following.
This seems reasonable, if that's the goal. But this is not the goal
mconnor had in his original post. I'd love to get to the point where we
agree on the goals.
> - Every CL must either be written by someone trusted OR r+ed by someone
> - If a patch is r+ with nits, then the final patch must be posted by someone
This doesn't quite address your "r+ without nits, then the patch author
updates it anyway" scenario; presumably we would need something to
address that too.