On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 09:34:05AM -0400, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <dan...@redhat.com>
> > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alo...@redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Doron Fediuck" <dfedi...@redhat.com>, "Mark Wu" 
> > <wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Greg Padgett"
> > <gpadg...@redhat.com>, vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org, "Ryan Harper" 
> > <ry...@us.ibm.com>, "Ayal Baron"
> > <aba...@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 3:26:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Change in vdsm[master]: Use 'yum clean expire-cache' instead 
> > of 'yum clean all'
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:59:05AM -0400, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Doron Fediuck" <dfedi...@redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alo...@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: "Mark Wu" <wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Dan Kenigsberg"
> > > > <dan...@redhat.com>, "Greg Padgett" <gpadg...@redhat.com>,
> > > > vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org, "Ryan Harper"
> > > > <ry...@us.ibm.com>, "Ayal Baron" <aba...@redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 2:28:07 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Change in vdsm[master]: Use 'yum clean expire-cache'
> > > > instead of 'yum clean all'
> > > > 
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alo...@redhat.com>
> > > > > To: "Ryan Harper" <ry...@us.ibm.com>
> > > > > Cc: "Mark Wu" <wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Dan Kenigsberg"
> > > > > <dan...@redhat.com>, "Greg Padgett" <gpadg...@redhat.com>,
> > > > > "Doron Fediuck" <dfedi...@redhat.com>,
> > > > > vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> > > > > Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 10:53:31 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Change in vdsm[master]: Use 'yum clean
> > > > > expire-cache'
> > > > > instead of 'yum clean all'
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Ryan Harper" <ry...@us.ibm.com>
> > > > > > To: vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
> > > > > > Cc: "Mark Wu" <wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Dan Kenigsberg"
> > > > > > <dan...@redhat.com>, "Greg Padgett" <gpadg...@redhat.com>,
> > > > > > "Doron Fediuck" <dfedi...@redhat.com>, "Alon Bar-Lev"
> > > > > > <alo...@redhat.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 10:24:08 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Change in vdsm[master]: Use 'yum clean
> > > > > > expire-cache'
> > > > > > instead of 'yum clean all'
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > * Alon Bar-Lev <alo...@redhat.com> [2012-09-27 13:38]:
> > > > > > > Alon Bar-Lev has posted comments on this change.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Change subject: Use 'yum clean expire-cache' instead of
> > > > > > > 'yum
> > > > > > > clean
> > > > > > > all'
> > > > > > > ......................................................................
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Patch Set 2:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Ok... I was discussing... I think that if you don't get +1
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > parties you should wait... :)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I see -1 as final decision... for the entire change... or
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > contributer is not cooperating.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'm interested in a little clarity here.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > As I see it, -1 means you don't want the current version
> > > > > > submitted.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I like the idea of putting a patch on hold while various
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > discussed, and it seems like a -1 is the right idea here
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > submitter can reply and original reviewer can re-review and
> > > > > > remove
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > -1
> > > > > > if the submitter has fully explained the issue.  Additionaly
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > submitter can resubmit with changes (and the -1 is removed
> > > > > > anyhow).
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is exactly the problem... you cannot rely on -1 as it
> > > > > clears
> > > > > if
> > > > > a new patchset is pushed.
> > 
> > At the moment, the job of the maintainer cannot be done by a script.
> > The
> > maintainer has to review former opinions on the patch, and check if
> > they
> > have been addressed. If a valuable reviewer gave an opinionated -1,
> > and
> > it was not addressed in a later version, the mainatainer should not
> > take
> > the patch.
> > 
> > To me, "-1" means: "hey, Dan, please do not take this patch into
> > master
> > before we get an answer to my worries, unless there is a more urgent
> > reason to take the patch earlier".
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> I don't understand why you don't treat "0" at the above...
> 
> If there were no worries, +1 had been provided...

To me, "0" means "I do not have a strong opinion, I trust other people
to make the right decision, given the facts and worries that I have
raised".

Sometimes I do not give a +1 simply because I did not have time to review
the whole code, not because I have a strong worry. "0" means "not
reviewed yet" or "not endorsed yet by me but not rejected by me".

A polite and well-detailed -1 should be used daily and not considered
"rude".

Dan.
_______________________________________________
vdsm-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel

Reply via email to