My only objection is the use of the word vote in a case which was definitely not a vote.
On Nov 23, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Scott Merrill wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Caius Durling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Just seen a commit with the following message: >> >> Re-applying button styles. In this instance Heilemann has been out- >> voted by >> a number of people (PMC and non-PMC) on IRC. >> >> IRC is NOT a binding vote and thus that shouldn't have been committed >> without voting on -dev first. > > IRC is not valid for votes, but it's perfectly valid for arriving at a > rough consensus for code-in-progress. We're still in "commit, then > review" mode. > > To help the review process, please be sure to include meaningful > commit messages. "Refining the new admin buttons." does not provide > nearly enough information to help someone understand how that > refinement was achieved. > > You don't need to post a long-winded explanation to -dev justifying > your commit (either before or after) if you can provide salient > details in the commit message itself. This will allow folks to read a > quick summary of the intent of your commit, and understand how it > might have been reached. They can then prepare questions for the > review part of our process. > > Simply reverting a commit is not an acceptable review. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
