Re: The future of commit access policy for core Firefox

On 3/12/17 9:55 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Alternately, you can create a patch which gets r+ with nits, and
> then update with some malicious code and  r=<committer>.

Speaking as a reviewer, for people I don't trust I pretty much never 
give "r+ with nits", because I don't trust them to address the nits 
correctly.

Even in cases when I do (e.g. if it's a typo in a comment), I do exactly 
the "last review", sometimes post-landing, that we seem to be talking about.

I certainly have no problem formalizing this for the untrusted patch 
author case.

Addressing the "compromised trusted account" case sanely is much harder, 
not least because the number of patches involved is suddenly much 
larger.  :(

> So, I would ask: do people believe that this is an acceptable state of
> affairs or should the minimum number of 'trusted' people required to land a patch be 1
> or more?

Obviously the latter.  ;)

-Boris