Hi, I think this discussion about details is pretty much irrelevant.
The original problem is that using a -2 to block a change that has been approved by the module maintainer is basically abusing gerrit to break our governance model. QUIP-2 clearly states that the maintainer has decision power in case no agreement can be reached. You might disagree with that +2, but it is *not* your decision at that point. As an Approver you are expected to know our governance model and work within its frame. So if the maintainer gives a +2, you are abusing the system by continuing to block the change and violating our governance model. Lars > On 16 Sep 2021, at 01:06, Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:40:37AM +0300, Иван Комиссаров wrote: >> 15 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> >> написал(а): >>> for example, he plainly admits that his documentation doesn't match >>> the code. >> >> That’s not true. >> > for it not being true you're making a _remarkable_ effort to establish > that it would be _just fine_. ;) > >> And if it is, feel free to submit patches, if you want the perfect >> documentation >> > it's not about perfect docu, it's about docu that even remotely matches > the actual behavior. your argument was that my criticism of your patch > is unjustified because the code actually does what i'm asking for, even > though the docu _clearly_ says something else. > > i don't actually care which it is, because either one justifies a -1. > >> I am not interested in translating from C++ to English in order to >> mention every small detail about implementation >> > are you aware of point 1.1 of the qt commit policy? > (and yes, qbs' documentend behavior is equivalent to qt's api in that > regard.) > >> (which you chose not to review despite being directly asked to do so. >> Several times). >> > that's entirely correct. i refuse to review code (which takes an order > of magnitude more effort to do properly) when the documentation already > tells me that what the code does is wrong. that's *reasonable*. > >> The rest of the community is not interested either. >> > which is quite unfortunate. but at least they are not the maintainers. > >> It is not boring, it is irrelevant to the patch - I haven’t done any >> global changes to the patch in a YEAR constantly pleasing you desire to >> discuss the bigger picture. >> > it's funny that you say that, because the very existence of the property > whose precise semantics we're debating so hotly now is actually wholly > my idea, and it took me long enough (that aforementioned year) to > convince you that it is a necessary and good one (the review logs refer > to it as QBS-61, prior to factoring it out to QBS-1604). > > you have also convinced me of two things just recently, so you know it's > possible if you just do it properly. > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
