You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geode.apache.org by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> on 2019/10/30 01:01:32 UTC
[DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules
Hi all,
It seems we've configured our branch protection rules such that pushing a
change to a PR that has been approved invalidates the previous approval.
I think we should turn this off - it looks like it's an optional feature.
We should trust people to rerequest reviews if needed. Right now this is
adding busywork for people to reapprove minor changes (Fixing merge
conflicts, spotless, etc.)
If you all agree I'll ask infra to uncheck "Dismiss stale pull request
approvals when new commits are pushed." in our branch protection rules.
-Dan
Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules
Posted by Jinmei Liao <ji...@pivotal.io>.
+1
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 6:08 PM Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1 …this has already bitten me a few times
>
> > On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It seems we've configured our branch protection rules such that pushing a
> > change to a PR that has been approved invalidates the previous approval.
> >
> > I think we should turn this off - it looks like it's an optional feature.
> > We should trust people to rerequest reviews if needed. Right now this is
> > adding busywork for people to reapprove minor changes (Fixing merge
> > conflicts, spotless, etc.)
> >
> > If you all agree I'll ask infra to uncheck "Dismiss stale pull request
> > approvals when new commits are pushed." in our branch protection rules.
> >
> > -Dan
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules
Posted by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>.
Seems like the consensus is to make this change. I'll follow up with infra.
-Dan
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:06 AM Jason Huynh <jh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1, thanks Dan!
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:07 AM Aaron Lindsey <al...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > - Aaron
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 8:02 AM Ju@N <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Perfect Naba, thanks for answering this.
> > > My vote is +1 then.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:37 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The check box Dan is mentioning will just not invalidate any approved
> > > > review if the code is changed.
> > > > If a change is requested, the button will remain disabled.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Naba
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:27 AM Joris Melchior <jmelchior@pivotal.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:27 AM Ju@N <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Question: this only applies for *approvals*, not for *refusals*,
> > > > right?;
> > > > > I
> > > > > > mean, the *merge pull request* button will remain blocked if
> there
> > > were
> > > > > > some changes requested by reviewers and the author of the PR adds
> > new
> > > > > > commits (either addressing those requested changes or not)?.
> > > > > > If the answer to the above is "yes", then +1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:44 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Darrel Schneider <
> > > > > dschneider@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:08 PM Owen Nichols <
> > > onichols@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 …this has already bitten me a few times
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith <
> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It seems we've configured our branch protection rules
> such
> > > that
> > > > > > > > pushing a
> > > > > > > > > > change to a PR that has been approved invalidates the
> > > previous
> > > > > > > > approval.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think we should turn this off - it looks like it's an
> > > > optional
> > > > > > > > feature.
> > > > > > > > > > We should trust people to rerequest reviews if needed.
> > Right
> > > > now
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > adding busywork for people to reapprove minor changes
> > (Fixing
> > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > conflicts, spotless, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you all agree I'll ask infra to uncheck "Dismiss stale
> > > pull
> > > > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > > approvals when new commits are pushed." in our branch
> > > > protection
> > > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -Dan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ju@N
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > *Joris Melchior *
> > > > > CF Engineering
> > > > > Pivotal Toronto
> > > > > 416 877 5427
> > > > >
> > > > > “Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally
> > for
> > > > > machines to execute.” – *Hal Abelson*
> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ju@N
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules
Posted by Jason Huynh <jh...@pivotal.io>.
+1, thanks Dan!
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:07 AM Aaron Lindsey <al...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1
>
> - Aaron
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 8:02 AM Ju@N <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Perfect Naba, thanks for answering this.
> > My vote is +1 then.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:37 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > The check box Dan is mentioning will just not invalidate any approved
> > > review if the code is changed.
> > > If a change is requested, the button will remain disabled.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Naba
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:27 AM Joris Melchior <jm...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:27 AM Ju@N <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Question: this only applies for *approvals*, not for *refusals*,
> > > right?;
> > > > I
> > > > > mean, the *merge pull request* button will remain blocked if there
> > were
> > > > > some changes requested by reviewers and the author of the PR adds
> new
> > > > > commits (either addressing those requested changes or not)?.
> > > > > If the answer to the above is "yes", then +1.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:44 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Darrel Schneider <
> > > > dschneider@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:08 PM Owen Nichols <
> > onichols@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 …this has already bitten me a few times
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It seems we've configured our branch protection rules such
> > that
> > > > > > > pushing a
> > > > > > > > > change to a PR that has been approved invalidates the
> > previous
> > > > > > > approval.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we should turn this off - it looks like it's an
> > > optional
> > > > > > > feature.
> > > > > > > > > We should trust people to rerequest reviews if needed.
> Right
> > > now
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > adding busywork for people to reapprove minor changes
> (Fixing
> > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > conflicts, spotless, etc.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you all agree I'll ask infra to uncheck "Dismiss stale
> > pull
> > > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > approvals when new commits are pushed." in our branch
> > > protection
> > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -Dan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ju@N
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *Joris Melchior *
> > > > CF Engineering
> > > > Pivotal Toronto
> > > > 416 877 5427
> > > >
> > > > “Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally
> for
> > > > machines to execute.” – *Hal Abelson*
> > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ju@N
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules
Posted by Aaron Lindsey <al...@pivotal.io>.
+1
- Aaron
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 8:02 AM Ju@N <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perfect Naba, thanks for answering this.
> My vote is +1 then.
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:37 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > The check box Dan is mentioning will just not invalidate any approved
> > review if the code is changed.
> > If a change is requested, the button will remain disabled.
> >
> > Regards
> > Naba
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:27 AM Joris Melchior <jm...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:27 AM Ju@N <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Question: this only applies for *approvals*, not for *refusals*,
> > right?;
> > > I
> > > > mean, the *merge pull request* button will remain blocked if there
> were
> > > > some changes requested by reviewers and the author of the PR adds new
> > > > commits (either addressing those requested changes or not)?.
> > > > If the answer to the above is "yes", then +1.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:44 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Darrel Schneider <
> > > dschneider@pivotal.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:08 PM Owen Nichols <
> onichols@pivotal.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 …this has already bitten me a few times
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It seems we've configured our branch protection rules such
> that
> > > > > > pushing a
> > > > > > > > change to a PR that has been approved invalidates the
> previous
> > > > > > approval.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think we should turn this off - it looks like it's an
> > optional
> > > > > > feature.
> > > > > > > > We should trust people to rerequest reviews if needed. Right
> > now
> > > > this
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > adding busywork for people to reapprove minor changes (Fixing
> > > merge
> > > > > > > > conflicts, spotless, etc.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you all agree I'll ask infra to uncheck "Dismiss stale
> pull
> > > > > request
> > > > > > > > approvals when new commits are pushed." in our branch
> > protection
> > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Dan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ju@N
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Joris Melchior *
> > > CF Engineering
> > > Pivotal Toronto
> > > 416 877 5427
> > >
> > > “Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for
> > > machines to execute.” – *Hal Abelson*
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ju@N
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules
Posted by "Ju@N" <ju...@gmail.com>.
Perfect Naba, thanks for answering this.
My vote is +1 then.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:37 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> The check box Dan is mentioning will just not invalidate any approved
> review if the code is changed.
> If a change is requested, the button will remain disabled.
>
> Regards
> Naba
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:27 AM Joris Melchior <jm...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:27 AM Ju@N <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Question: this only applies for *approvals*, not for *refusals*,
> right?;
> > I
> > > mean, the *merge pull request* button will remain blocked if there were
> > > some changes requested by reviewers and the author of the PR adds new
> > > commits (either addressing those requested changes or not)?.
> > > If the answer to the above is "yes", then +1.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:44 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Darrel Schneider <
> > dschneider@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:08 PM Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 …this has already bitten me a few times
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems we've configured our branch protection rules such that
> > > > > pushing a
> > > > > > > change to a PR that has been approved invalidates the previous
> > > > > approval.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we should turn this off - it looks like it's an
> optional
> > > > > feature.
> > > > > > > We should trust people to rerequest reviews if needed. Right
> now
> > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > adding busywork for people to reapprove minor changes (Fixing
> > merge
> > > > > > > conflicts, spotless, etc.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you all agree I'll ask infra to uncheck "Dismiss stale pull
> > > > request
> > > > > > > approvals when new commits are pushed." in our branch
> protection
> > > > rules.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Dan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ju@N
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Joris Melchior *
> > CF Engineering
> > Pivotal Toronto
> > 416 877 5427
> >
> > “Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for
> > machines to execute.” – *Hal Abelson*
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson>
> >
>
--
Ju@N
Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
The check box Dan is mentioning will just not invalidate any approved
review if the code is changed.
If a change is requested, the button will remain disabled.
Regards
Naba
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:27 AM Joris Melchior <jm...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:27 AM Ju@N <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Question: this only applies for *approvals*, not for *refusals*, right?;
> I
> > mean, the *merge pull request* button will remain blocked if there were
> > some changes requested by reviewers and the author of the PR adds new
> > commits (either addressing those requested changes or not)?.
> > If the answer to the above is "yes", then +1.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:44 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Darrel Schneider <
> dschneider@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:08 PM Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 …this has already bitten me a few times
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems we've configured our branch protection rules such that
> > > > pushing a
> > > > > > change to a PR that has been approved invalidates the previous
> > > > approval.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we should turn this off - it looks like it's an optional
> > > > feature.
> > > > > > We should trust people to rerequest reviews if needed. Right now
> > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > adding busywork for people to reapprove minor changes (Fixing
> merge
> > > > > > conflicts, spotless, etc.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you all agree I'll ask infra to uncheck "Dismiss stale pull
> > > request
> > > > > > approvals when new commits are pushed." in our branch protection
> > > rules.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Dan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ju@N
> >
>
>
> --
> *Joris Melchior *
> CF Engineering
> Pivotal Toronto
> 416 877 5427
>
> “Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for
> machines to execute.” – *Hal Abelson*
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules
Posted by Joris Melchior <jm...@pivotal.io>.
+1
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:27 AM Ju@N <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Question: this only applies for *approvals*, not for *refusals*, right?; I
> mean, the *merge pull request* button will remain blocked if there were
> some changes requested by reviewers and the author of the PR adds new
> commits (either addressing those requested changes or not)?.
> If the answer to the above is "yes", then +1.
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:44 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Darrel Schneider <ds...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:08 PM Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 …this has already bitten me a few times
> > > >
> > > > > On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems we've configured our branch protection rules such that
> > > pushing a
> > > > > change to a PR that has been approved invalidates the previous
> > > approval.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should turn this off - it looks like it's an optional
> > > feature.
> > > > > We should trust people to rerequest reviews if needed. Right now
> this
> > > is
> > > > > adding busywork for people to reapprove minor changes (Fixing merge
> > > > > conflicts, spotless, etc.)
> > > > >
> > > > > If you all agree I'll ask infra to uncheck "Dismiss stale pull
> > request
> > > > > approvals when new commits are pushed." in our branch protection
> > rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ju@N
>
--
*Joris Melchior *
CF Engineering
Pivotal Toronto
416 877 5427
“Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for
machines to execute.” – *Hal Abelson*
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson>
Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules
Posted by "Ju@N" <ju...@gmail.com>.
Question: this only applies for *approvals*, not for *refusals*, right?; I
mean, the *merge pull request* button will remain blocked if there were
some changes requested by reviewers and the author of the PR adds new
commits (either addressing those requested changes or not)?.
If the answer to the above is "yes", then +1.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:44 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Darrel Schneider <ds...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:08 PM Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 …this has already bitten me a few times
> > >
> > > > On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > It seems we've configured our branch protection rules such that
> > pushing a
> > > > change to a PR that has been approved invalidates the previous
> > approval.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should turn this off - it looks like it's an optional
> > feature.
> > > > We should trust people to rerequest reviews if needed. Right now this
> > is
> > > > adding busywork for people to reapprove minor changes (Fixing merge
> > > > conflicts, spotless, etc.)
> > > >
> > > > If you all agree I'll ask infra to uncheck "Dismiss stale pull
> request
> > > > approvals when new commits are pushed." in our branch protection
> rules.
> > > >
> > > > -Dan
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Ju@N
Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
+1
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Darrel Schneider <ds...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:08 PM Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > +1 …this has already bitten me a few times
> >
> > > On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > It seems we've configured our branch protection rules such that
> pushing a
> > > change to a PR that has been approved invalidates the previous
> approval.
> > >
> > > I think we should turn this off - it looks like it's an optional
> feature.
> > > We should trust people to rerequest reviews if needed. Right now this
> is
> > > adding busywork for people to reapprove minor changes (Fixing merge
> > > conflicts, spotless, etc.)
> > >
> > > If you all agree I'll ask infra to uncheck "Dismiss stale pull request
> > > approvals when new commits are pushed." in our branch protection rules.
> > >
> > > -Dan
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules
Posted by Darrel Schneider <ds...@pivotal.io>.
+1
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:08 PM Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1 …this has already bitten me a few times
>
> > On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It seems we've configured our branch protection rules such that pushing a
> > change to a PR that has been approved invalidates the previous approval.
> >
> > I think we should turn this off - it looks like it's an optional feature.
> > We should trust people to rerequest reviews if needed. Right now this is
> > adding busywork for people to reapprove minor changes (Fixing merge
> > conflicts, spotless, etc.)
> >
> > If you all agree I'll ask infra to uncheck "Dismiss stale pull request
> > approvals when new commits are pushed." in our branch protection rules.
> >
> > -Dan
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules
Posted by Owen Nichols <on...@pivotal.io>.
+1 …this has already bitten me a few times
> On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> It seems we've configured our branch protection rules such that pushing a
> change to a PR that has been approved invalidates the previous approval.
>
> I think we should turn this off - it looks like it's an optional feature.
> We should trust people to rerequest reviews if needed. Right now this is
> adding busywork for people to reapprove minor changes (Fixing merge
> conflicts, spotless, etc.)
>
> If you all agree I'll ask infra to uncheck "Dismiss stale pull request
> approvals when new commits are pushed." in our branch protection rules.
>
> -Dan