On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 04:40:14PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Paul B Mahol <[email protected]> writes: > > On 1/27/12, Justin Ruggles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Fixes build with --enable-libspeex > >> --- > >> libavcodec/libspeexenc.c | 2 +- > >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > OK > > Until your own patches demonstrate a higher quality, an "OK" from you > means very little.
Can we please have a more cordial and constructive atmosphere? This comment is not conducive to encouraging more widespread review nor a friendly and productive atmosphere. I'm happy that Paul helps out with reviewing and I encourage him as well as everybody else to chime in. Giving an "OK" to a patch always means (or just means if you prefer) I *believe* the patch to be OK to the best of my knowledge. and not The patch *is* OK beyond any reasonable doubt. I consider an OK a guideline for the person deciding to queue, test and push the patch. That person has to decide if the balance of author competence in the area, number of reviews and reviewer competence in the area vs. patch complexity inspire enough confidence to apply a change to the codebase. In this particular case, I would have that confidence and push the patch without second thoughts after a FATE run. In other cases one may wish to have more than one set of eyes inspect a set of changes. I have overruled OKs and my OKs (or my patches - more or less the same) have been overruled as faulty. Nobody is without fault and we learn more every day. So nothing to see here really, let's move on. But certainly rookie devs should not be discouraged from trying their best by lending a hand. We do not and cannot expect more than everybody to contribute to the best of their abilities. Thanks for your understanding, Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
