Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Need more chaos #48

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 23, 2017
Merged

Conversation

Zidail
Copy link
Contributor

@Zidail Zidail commented May 23, 2017

1pk557

@DasSkelett
Copy link
Contributor

Nope, in order to prevent PRs like this.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 23, 2017

Outstanding attempt, though. I kinda want to +1 it just for that...

@chaosbot chaosbot merged commit 9500e94 into Chaosthebot:master May 23, 2017
@rhengles
Copy link
Member

What

@mrhwick
Copy link
Contributor

mrhwick commented May 23, 2017

Well that didn't take long.

@romgrk romgrk mentioned this pull request May 23, 2017
chaosbot added a commit that referenced this pull request May 23, 2017
This reverts commit 9500e94, reversing
changes made to fda0309.

This is being reverted on a technicality, because the `votes` variable name was
not defined in chaos.py, it was killing the server.
@Ajedi32
Copy link

Ajedi32 commented May 23, 2017

Uh... so is there a bug in the vote counting code or something? The merge commit (9500e94) claims there were only two votes on this PR (both in favor), when in reality there were over a hundred.

@geekyi
Copy link

geekyi commented May 23, 2017

Possible explanation for why this got merged: #82 (comment)

@hongaar hongaar mentioned this pull request May 24, 2017
@rudehn rudehn mentioned this pull request May 24, 2017
chaosbot added a commit that referenced this pull request May 24, 2017
#152: Voting threshold

Description:
There should be a voting threshold (it's actually a threshold on the votes _difference_).

Set to 1% of repo followers (currently, that means the difference between 👍 and 👎 should be at least 12).

Prevents things like #138 and #48.

Maybe we can change this later to use a percentage of active contributors instead of (possibly passive) stargazers? Not sure how to calculate that atm though.

:ok_woman: PR passed with a vote of 18 for and 2 against, with a weighted total of 16.0 and a threshold of 1.0.

Vote record:
@ECrownofFire: 1
@manawasp: -1
@Vad1mo: 1
@andrewda: 1
@bperson: 1
@chipironcin: 1
@davidak: 1
@frazr: 1
@hongaar: 1
@kurokikaze: 1
@lukeramsden: 1
@pivotal-avenkatesh: 1
@qgustavor: 1
@reddraggone9: 1
@rhengles: 1
@richardjonathonharris: 1
@rudehn: 1
@tarunbatra: -1
@viktorsec: 1
@xyproto: 1
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants