Summarizing the discussion a bit here:
- There is consensus that such a bypass mechanism could be useful
- There is widespread concern of abuse. Due to this concern, it’s been suggested to also improve our CI filter to skip parts of the CI for certain changes.
- There is consensus that committers should enforce that some verification be done prior to submitting the PR.
Given the above, my suggestion would be we move forward as follows:
- We move forward with a trial period of
[skip ci]
but require it to be present in the PR title so that it’s clear fromgit log
. - We limit
[skip ci]
to quickly reverting PRs which caused breakages. - We implement the CI filter suggestions from @manupa-arm to avoid introducing
[skip ci]
into our regular development flow. This way, if we decide to abandon the mechanism after a period of time, we do so independent of regression in our normal development workflow.
How does this sound to everyone?