Flaw in our process for dealing with trivial changes

[Richard Levitte]

clacheck modification coming up!

Cheers,
Richard

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 04:48:38 +0100,
Dr Paul Dale wrote:
> 
> 
> A better example of this problem: #10607.  Both Paul and I approved it yesterday and I merged it
> today without noticing until too late that it was tagged “CLA: trivial” :(
> I’ve not reverted it at this point but will if necessary.
> 
> Let’s get the label in.
> 
> Pauli
> -- 
> Dr Paul Dale | Distinguished Architect | Cryptographic Foundations 
> Phone +61 7 3031 7217
> Oracle Australia
> 
>     On 13 Dec 2019, at 11:02 am, Richard Levitte <levitte at openssl.org> wrote:
>    
>     On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:31:10 +0100,
>     Dr Paul Dale wrote:
> 
>         A red blocker along the lines of: “Triviality Unconfirmed”. One of
>         the reviewers needs to remove this before the PR can be merged.
>        
>         It’s in our face, it prevent accidental merges and its low overhead.
> 
>     I still think simply adding the label should be sufficient.  I dunno
>     about you, but I look at labels all the time, for all sorts of
>     reasons, and one saying [cla: trivial] would certainly attract my
>     attention.
>    
>     Let's make it bright red-orange, that'll catch anyone's eye (even mine)
>    
>     Also, removing that label will rapidly be annoying as soon as someone
>     closes and re-opens a PR...  or whatever other action that triggers
>     the "pull_request" event (and there's a lot that does that...  our
>     script is being kept busy!).
>    
>     Cheers,
>     Richard
>    
>     --
>     Richard Levitte         levitte at openssl.org
>     OpenSSL Project         http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
> 
> 
-- 
Richard Levitte         levitte at openssl.org
OpenSSL Project         http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/