[QGIS-Developer] QGIS repository management

[Sandro Santilli]

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 03:08:34PM +1300, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 03:41, Sandro Santilli <strk at kbt.io> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 09:59:35AM +1300, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-Developer wrote:
> >
> > > If you flip the situation, you'll see that yes, you do have trust!
> > >
> > > - a complete stranger CANNOT approve their own changes
> > > - a complete stranger CANNOT approve other stranger's changes
> > > - a complete stranger CANNOT approve an approved member's changes
> > >
> > > vs
> > >
> > > - an approved member CANNOT approve their own changes
> > > - an approved member CAN approve a complete stranger's changes
> > > - an approved member CAN approve a another approved member's changes
> >
> > That's partial trust. I'm trusted to be able to judge someone else's
> > work but not to judge my own work !
> 
> Ok, it's partial trust. What's wrong with that?

I feel I'm not explaining myself correctly.
I do believe in peer review, and I'm happy for others to look at the
changes I propose. I'd love everyone to look at them!

The word "partial" was not appropriate, probably, it's more about
"inconsistency". 

> In short: I'm more than OK with only partial trusting everyone. We ALL
> make mistakes, so let's stick with the processes we have which reduce
> the risk of these mistakes hitting end users..

I know I make mistakes, but I'm able to merge changes proposed by a
random contributor, where my own review is enough.

I'm FULLY trusted in that case, and this is conflicting with not
being so when it's me proposing the changes.

Why should I be able to merge in that case then ? Is it because
2 people review the code ? Me and the proponent ? Then why the
random contributor review would not count on MY prs ?

I hope you see the discrepancy here.

--strk;

  Libre GIS consultant/developer
  https://strk.kbt.io/services.html