Proposal: Require re-review before integration if the PR is modified

[Andrew Dinn]

On 19/06/2024 16:27, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 4:32 PM Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at redhat.com 
> <mailto:sgehwolf at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On Wed, 2024-06-19 at 15:00 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>      > Maybe this policy will result in some otherwise unnecessary
>      > re-reviewing. But as long as it's only a single reviewer to do a
>     final
>      > pass, rather than a tick from everyone who has approved, I agree with
>      > this policy.
> 
>     I like this idea of a single reviewer only (not all of them) needing to
>     approve the final version.
> 
> 
> +1 for single reviewer only. I think that is a pragmatic compromise.
I agree that it is a good idea to have a re-review after new changes are 
pushed. However, I also agree that it would be overkill to require every 
prior reviewer to have to re-review.

I think Andrew Haley is right to assume that one (capital R) re-reviewer 
should be enough, even in cases where the PR would normally requires 
sign-off by two (Capital R) reviewers.

In cases where a (capital R) re-reviewer is unsure whether they can sign 
off all new changes because they lie outside their area of expertise 
they can and should negotiate with any other reviewers they deem 
necessary to be confirm the changes are innocuous.

regards,


Andrew Dinn
-----------