On Thu, 12 Nov 2015, Donald Sharp wrote:
So question:
What constitutes an ack? I posted up 60 odd patches over the last few days
and only have gotten some conversation around 2-3 of those patches. Are
the rest, by omission, assumed to be ok then?
My vote is for "No outstanding questions or objections == accepted" - with
the conditional erring towards not accepting in case of
ambiguity/doubt/uncertainty.
So yeah, if no one says anything, it goes in. Note "This looks like it
needs review" would be a valid objection.
I.e. the default is a "fast-track" acceptance path, but if someone -
*anyone* - cares then they can "derail" a patch to a longer discussion (to
borrow terms from Sun development processes). That'd be my vote anyway.
My issue with requiring positive acks is that it'll be easier for some
than others to get them. Though, it is still really good signal to get
ACKs on patches.
Seems to me it's easier to filter stuff out than tracking Acks though, and
I suspect people tend to be more motivated to hit reply when they don't
think something is completely right, than when something is acceptable.
But, if more people want an explicit-acceptance system rather than
default-in+filter-on-comments....
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall.
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
