Le 12/11/2015 18:43, Paul Jakma a écrit :
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....
Does this not require some automatic tools, like jenkins system?
For example, openstack has some tools which allow "external" people to add
their own tests.
When you look at the patch, you can see quickly if it breaks something.
Example: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96691/
Regards,
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
