Skip to content

Conversation

@wking
Copy link
Contributor

@wking wking commented Jun 9, 2016

I'm personally fine with leaving this sort of policing up to the maintainers. But explicit no-self-LGTM docs landed in #13, and it's good to be internally consistent.

I'm personally fine with leaving this sort of policing up to the
maintainers [1].  But explicit no-self-LGTM docs landed in c82a2e7
(MAINTAINERS: disallow self-LGTMs, 2016-05-27, opencontainers#13), and it's good to
be internally consistent.

[1]: opencontainers#13 (comment)

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>
@caniszczyk
Copy link
Contributor

caniszczyk commented Jun 9, 2016

LGTM

Approved with PullApprove

2 similar comments
@vbatts
Copy link
Member

vbatts commented Jun 9, 2016

LGTM

Approved with PullApprove

@hqhq
Copy link

hqhq commented Jun 12, 2016

LGTM

Approved with PullApprove

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Jul 12, 2016

sure LGTM

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Jul 12, 2016

LGTM

Approved with PullApprove

@wking
Copy link
Contributor Author

wking commented Oct 11, 2016

This is also covered in #21, which handles a few other PullApprove changes as well. I'm happy to close in favor of #21 or drop this change from #21 if either would help get this landed.

@caniszczyk
Copy link
Contributor

lets drop this change in favor of #21

@caniszczyk caniszczyk closed this Oct 11, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants