400 karma · joined December 19, 2018
In my opinion, the levels are:
1. Barely-existent review: The PR author is the SME, I'm only reviewing and LGTMing this because peer review is needed to submit the change. I might notice a typo or something along those lines, and will call out if they're being lazy and skipping tests.
2. Functionality-focused change: Does the code meet the objective and do the tests adequately cover the change?
3. In-depth review: Does the code address the problem in an efficient way that is not likely to cause the team future pain?
You don't need the application to, only your IDP. Everything should be SSO from there.
That's a privilege a lot of people in cities don't have. I would love to have a gas cook top, but my building is electric only.
Edit: I'm also in the "advanced home cook" category, not a pro.
Rules change. The people in power change. They may say "fuck those rules" in the future. The only way to prevent abuses like this is to not surveil unnecessarily.
What? Is the wealthier person in this scenario too much of a snob to stay in cheaper accommodations that everyone can afford, or pay a little more than their "fair share" to help book nicer ones that everyone can enjoy?
I would not want to be friends with that person.
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/managing-commit-si...
Contributing improvements externally allows the project to remain independent. And if the maintainer is overburdened they can decline the patches or postpone review. Nobody is forcing them to accept the changes.