You cannot meaningfully vote on the PR without reviewing it. It is that
simple. There is zero point in providing details beyond that as the PR is
the details. The subject of the PR doesn't remove the need to read the
details to form a view.
The commentary on the PR and the code itself is what
I currently fail to see why you can't describe in words what you
intend to fix. The PR itself has a subject, so have the commits.
One of the reasons we have this vote is public is so that people
reading this list can comment on it. Just some number doesn't tell
them anything without having to go
The votes on the PR are precisely that - to vote to proceed with the PR via
the normal review process - and that means looking at the varying
viewpoints.
If we reached a consensus that overall we didn't think the PR made sense
then we wouldn't form a vote of that form.
What you are voting for is
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 07:21:57AM +1000, Tim Hudson wrote:
>
> This isn't about the OTC meeting itself - this is about the details of the
> topic actually being captured within the PR.
> You need to actually look at the PR to form a view. And we do add to the
> PRs during the discussion if
On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 5:26 AM Dr. Matthias St. Pierre <
matthias.st.pie...@ncp-e.com> wrote:
> > I'm starting to vote -1 on anything has a vote text that looks like
> that, so -1.
>
> I perfectly understand Kurt's dislike of this kind of votes. The text is
> not very informative for OTC members
nssl.org
> Subject: OTC quick votes [WAS: RE: OTC vote PR #16171: config_diagnostic]
>
> > I'm starting to vote -1 on anything has a vote text that looks like that,
> > so -1.
>
> I perfectly understand Kurt's dislike of this kind of votes. The text is not
> very i
