On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Adam Young wrote: > On 08/21/2014 12:34 PM, Dolph Mathews wrote: > > > >On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com > ><mailto:berra...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:05:04PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote: > > > "I would prefer that you didn't merge this." > > > > > > i.e. The project is better off without it. > > > > A bit off topic, but I've never liked this message that gets added > > as it think it sounds overly negative. It would better written > > as > > > > "This patch needs further work before it can be merged" > > > > > >++ "This patch needs further work before it can be merged, and as a > >reviewer, I am either too lazy or just unwilling to checkout your patch > >and fix those issues myself." > > Heh...well, there are a couple other aspects: > > 1. I am unsure if my understanding is correct. I'd like to have some > validation, and, if I am wrong, I'll withdraw the objections. > > 2. If I make the change, I can no longer +2/+A the review. If you make the > change, I can approve it.
If it is something totally minor like a typo fix, or docs grammar fix or whitespace cleanup it is reasonable to +2/+A something that you took over from the original author, but that would be a pretty rare scenario in general. Certainly a change which had any kind of a functional impact, I'd not be happy with a person +2/+A'ing their re-post. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev