- User Since
- Jan 9 2016, 1:02 AM (412 w, 6 d)
Sep 27 2017
Aug 29 2017
Aug 10 2017
Jul 5 2017
Yeah, I could see that being a not very elegant path to go down. I guess it depends on how difficult it is to implement f(g(h())). If it is a deep rabbit hole, then it's probably best to just fill in a few specific use cases that we think are compelling, e.g. exactviewer() (assuming you think it's useful).
Jun 29 2017
Thanks for the feedback. There is definitely a problem in general where people are added to too many reviews, but it's generally due to being part of too many owner packages. We have been encouraging teams to prune their ownership to minimize gatekeeping, but it's still helpful to have targeted dashboards.
Jun 27 2017
Jun 14 2017
Jun 7 2017
I think the majority of issues I (and many others at Twitter) run into is due to performance / slow page loads. If there is anything in the UI that could be minimized / simplified to speed up page loads, that would be really helpful. However, I imagine that performance is mainly a back-end issue (and probably our instance's fault in some ways).
Jun 1 2017
@epriestley yes, the tested owner packages were both weak dominion. Sorry for not mentioning that earlier. You've explained the issue perfectly as far as I can tell. The changes you have planned make a lot more sense than the current behavior and should fix the issues we were seeing. Thank you!
May 25 2017
That could work too. Perhaps a box of donuts instead though.
Yep, those repro steps look right to me.
FWIW, a check-all box is what we had in mind.
Apr 11 2017
Thanks, closing this one!
Or I guess, you* can close this since I can't. Whoops.
Scratch that, you're right @epriestley . We just got confused during the workflow and didn't realize jmeador previously accepted.
Apr 10 2017
Whoops, I think I may have totally fudged the screenshots. Let me try to reproduce with proper screenshots.
Apr 6 2017
Just tested, works great. Thanks for the quick fix!
No prob! If it helps:
Not sure if this is a known bug / missing feature, but FYI just in case...
Mar 16 2017
Mar 13 2017
Confirming that the patch above works (tested using send-test --to)!
Mar 10 2017
Great, thank you!
Sounds reasonable to me.
Any suggestions to test this on staging without mass emailing everyone / patching prod? I am trying to test this on staging with bin/mail show-outbound --id xxxx (staging has mail disabled), but the recipients / To: list look fine with or without the patch.
Mar 9 2017
Thanks for the quick fix and the huge amount of detail under the hood, we'll give that patch a shot!
Feb 17 2017
As far as "opt-in", are you mostly concerned about performance?
NOTE: Since packages do not own paths exclusively, any user can create a package on / of every repository and be allowed to force-accept every package review because their "everything" package is now a containing package for all other packages. However, they could already just remove the reviewers, so I don't think this is important. We could add options to Owners (e.g., an optional whitelist of "Stronger" packages) or something to prevent this, but I don't plan to do this. Just fire anyone abusing it.