What's the length of time for an implicit-ack? On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Nicolas Dichtel <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
