Hi Carin, The discussion [1] was about whether to enable automatic checks on using old behaviour in new PR's. Kellens PR [2] was about modernizing the actual code itself and was not up for voting, thus could not receive any technical veto votes.
Per the discussion (as I have understood it), we won't get veto votes if we would enable the check on CI, if it would be treated as a warning. Thank you for merging the PR in the first place. I see no reason for reverting it. Best Anton [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b47f285a80bef47c5ead6c361614e338a0661f6c0c76196c1e3719c5@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12356 вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 15:24, Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>: > Hi all > > I think we have to make the clear separation between the thread votes > on "uniformly adopting C++11 range loops in the MXNet project" and a > PR which refactored code to be more legible and with improved variable > names. > Merging that PR doesn't imply that we have to uniformly adopt the > previous proposal. The PR was reviewed and approved by several > people. I would keep the two topics separate, merging this PR doesn't > prescribe any particular idiom for future commits or reviews. > > Pedro. > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:58 PM Carin Meier <carinme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > My intent was to be helpful, but I think I may have merged this PR > > yesterday too soon thinking it was approved and ready to merge > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12356 > > > > I didn't see the connected dev discussion > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b47f285a80bef47c5ead6c361614e338a0661f6c0c76196c1e3719c5@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E > > where there were -1 votes, which I believe are vetos? > > > > So the question is confirm: should PR should be reverted? > > > > Sorry for any confusion, > > Carin >
