The required_approvals option should require up-to-date approvals

The required_approvals option should enforce that every piece of code that makes it into the master branch, has been reviewed by the requisite number of people. However, the current implementation counts approving reviews even if new code has been added to a PR since the review. This unfortunate situation requires users to manually reason about which code has been adequately reviewed. Bors should recognize approvals only if they apply to all of the changes which are going to be merged. For backwards compatibility and flexibility, this should be controlled by a new configuration option.

I allow this RFC document to be modified and redistributed under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license, or the CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 license, at your option.


Suppose you have a project which specifies required_approvals = 3:

  • Person A creates a PR.
  • Reviewers B, C, and D approve it.
  • Person A pushes an "extra" commit to the PR.
  • Reviewer B runs bors r+.

In this situation, bors will happily merge the PR, even though the extra commit wasn't actually approved by anyone except for possibly reviewer B. This makes the required_approvals configuration option much less useful, since it fails to ensure that all changes have been approved by 3 people.

The invariant that required_approvals = n means every piece of code that makes it into the master branch has been reviewed by n people is a natural extension of the NRSROSE, and bors should enforce it too.

Guide-level explanation

The configuration option up_to_date_approvals = true causes GitHub Reviews to count towards the number of required_approvals only when they are up to date. Pushing new changes to the PR branch requires prior approving reviews to be resubmitted in order to count.

Enabling up_to_date_approvals makes certain that any code merged to master has been adequately reviewed.

Reference-level explanation

up_to_date_approvals is a boolean configuration option in bors.toml defaulting to false.

We say review R is up to date for commit hash X if R's commit_id key as seen through the GitHub Review API is exactly X. Otherwise it is stale. If up_to_date_approvals is true, then whenever the number of approving reviews is counted for the purpose of comparing against required_approvals, only those reviews which are up to date for the hash of the commit to be merged are counted. If up_to_date_approvals is false, then all reviews from the PR are counted (maintaining current behavior). The up_to_date_approvals option has no effect if required_approvals is not set. The up_to_date_approvals option also does not affect the determination of whether or not there are any rejecting reviews.

If a bors command is rejected due to not having enough approving reviews, then bors will include the number of reviews counted and the number of reviews required in its comment. If up_to_date_approvals is true, it will also include the number of approving reviews that were not counted because they were not up to date.

Let n be the value of required_approvals, m be the number of total approvals present, and l be the number of up to date approvals.

If up_to_date_approvals is false, or if l == m:

Rejected by too few approved reviews: m out of n required approvals were present

If up_to_date_approvals is true and l != m:

Rejected by too few approved reviews: l out of n required approvals were present (m - l stale reviews were not counted)


  • Adds a new configuration option, increasing complexity.
  • Might require more API calls to determine if reviews are up to date.
  • UX may be confusing since GitHub will still display the stale reviews, but bors won't count them.


  • Make up_to_date_approvals = true the default behavior or the only behavior.
    • Not chosen because it would be a breaking change for current workflows
    • Not all users may want this stricter behavior, since it requires more effort from reviewers and change authors
  • Use a CI check to enforce the number of up-to-date reviews
    • It's more impactful to make this change in bors instead of requiring every project that wants this behavior to implement it themselves.
    • Requires duplicating most of the existing functionality of required_approvals just to change one small aspect of it.
  • Do nothing
    • For some projects it's not acceptable for code changes to be merged without a certain minimum number of reviews.

Prior art

  • The GitHub option, "Dismiss stale pull request approvals when new commits are pushed.", essentially implements the same behavior as this.
    • Note that projects using bors can't take advantage of this, because GitHub doesn't allow enabling this option without also enabling the "Require [nonzero number] of approving reviews" protection rule on the target branch. This latter rule is itself incompatible with bors, since the merge commit created by bors counts as "unapproved".
  • The Gerrit approval system automatically dismisses reviews when new code is pushed.
  • graydon/bors' implementation of code review uses approval comments which are either attached to the commits themselves, or with the commit hash included in the comment. Either way, approvals only count for a single commit. This is the implementation used by the Rust language project.

Unresolved questions

  • What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets accepted?
    • Final choice of configuration option name and exact wording of error messages
  • What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before deployment?
    • Details of interaction with the GitHub API to determine which reviews are stale.
  • What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC?
    • Dismissal of stale rejecting reviews

Future possibilities

Didn't think of anything.

1 Like

I support this idea.

If bors' required_approvals option is not a perfect match for GitHub's review protection feature, then it's a bug, and you can submit a fix without going through an RFC.

Oh I see. The ability to dismiss stale reviews requires protected branches. It's not available without enabling protected branches.

After letting this one sit for awhile, it still seems like a good idea. And it fits the existing intent of the feature, too.

We should document this fact when putting it in.

It's now in FCP, disposition accept.

This topic was automatically closed after 14 days. New replies are no longer allowed.