I'm fine with implicit-ack. donald
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Paul Jakma <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
