On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Doug Wiegley <[email protected]> wrote: > I don’t know, -1 really means, “there is something wrong, the submitter > should fix it and clear the slate.” Whereas -2 has two meanings. The first > is “procedural block”, and the second is “f*** you.” > > I really don’t see a reason not to use the procedural block as a procedural > block. Are you not trusting the other cores to remove them or something? > It’s literally what it’s there for.
I'm not complaining. I've had plenty of these -2s and I understanding the reason behind it. But, I thought I'd chime in. I interpret a -2 on a patch as a procedural block because of something related to the patch. It is awkward as a procedural block when it is being applied due to circumstances that have nothing to do with the patch itself and the only person who can remove the block is the person who applied it in the first place. That person might get distracted, leave for the week-end, go on vacation, etc. Would it be nice if the project itself had an easy procedural block? A single switch that turns off entering the gate queue for the entire project? Wouldn't it also be nice if the switch could be toggled by any one of a group responsible for it? I think it would be nice but I'm not sure how it could be easily implemented. Carl __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
