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