On Sunday 14 September 2014 08:11:43 Ben Cooksley wrote: > On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Ivan Čukić <ivan.cu...@kde.org> wrote: > >> that needs to be reverted because it's actively objectiona- > >> ble. As Ivan pointed out, few of us will ever commit any- > >> thing if we're not confident it would meet with the approval > > > > While I do agree that we have a strange and unreally awesome community > > that > > behaves really well (and I do trust most KDE devs), I was approaching to > > this from the same angle as Martin. > > > > Namely, for the projects that I know the people who are actually the > > /core/ > > team, I always wait their input before pushing something. For those that I > > don't know, I need to check who is in charge, and whether a 'ship it' I > > got > > actually has any weight behind it. > > > > +2 would show a newcommer that the review is really by someone who (1) > > looked it in-detail, and (2) by someone who actually knows what he is > > talking about. (this might sound overly strict, but I guess you know what > > I meant by this) > > Shouldn't this be up to the reviewer to use their good judgement when > deciding whether to use +1 or +2? > If they're not the maintainer or don't know the codebase well enough, > then granting +2 would be rather unusual from a social point of view.
I agree here. Everyone with a KDE developer account should in principle have the right to give a +2. One should only use it when appropriate though, i.e. when one is the maintainer of a given piece of code or when the patch is simple enough so that one feels safe to give the other the ship-it. In ReviewBoard it's the same currently, no? Bye -- Milian Wolff m...@milianw.de http://milianw.de
