Does post-commit review mean that the author must find reviewers, in the same way as for a patch, except after the commit?
Or does it mean that the author commits without a review, and then must respond to people who choose to review, but the commit might go unreviewed?
I understand from [1] that “where there is any uncertainty, a patch should be reviewed prior to being committed”. I just want to be clear, when a small change does qualify for post-commit review, what the author has to do. [1] says “prior to an explicit review”: I’m not sure if that means an explicit review must happen eventually.
[Re-send, remembering to re-add the list this time]
It means, you may commit without prior review, but you must still respond to anyone who chooses to review afterward. You are not expected to find reviewers. It is possible the commit will not be reviewed, although I believe there are people who like to look at a lot of NFC/”obvious” commits. There will be no formal record of who (if anyone) looked at it, unless someone does have a comment.
You are expected to use this power only for good purposes.
