----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Harper" <ryanh(a)us.ibm.com>
To: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>, "Doron Fediuck"
<dfediuck(a)redhat.com>, "Mark Wu" <wudxw(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Greg Padgett" <gpadgett(a)redhat.com>, vdsm-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org,
"Ryan Harper" <ryanh(a)us.ibm.com>, "Ayal
Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 4:32:30 PM
Subject: Re: Change in vdsm[master]: Use 'yum clean expire-cache' instead of
'yum clean all'
* Dan Kenigsberg <danken(a)redhat.com> [2012-10-02 09:03]:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 09:34:05AM -0400, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com>
> > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "Doron Fediuck" <dfediuck(a)redhat.com>, "Mark
Wu"
> > > <wudxw(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Greg Padgett"
> > > <gpadgett(a)redhat.com>, vdsm-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org,
"Ryan
> > > Harper" <ryanh(a)us.ibm.com>, "Ayal Baron"
> > > <abaron(a)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" <dfediuck(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: "Mark Wu" <wudxw(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Dan Kenigsberg"
> > > > > <danken(a)redhat.com>, "Greg Padgett"
<gpadgett(a)redhat.com>,
> > > > > vdsm-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org, "Ryan Harper"
> > > > > <ryanh(a)us.ibm.com>, "Ayal Baron"
<abaron(a)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" <alonbl(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > To: "Ryan Harper" <ryanh(a)us.ibm.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "Mark Wu" <wudxw(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Dan
> > > > > > Kenigsberg"
> > > > > > <danken(a)redhat.com>, "Greg Padgett"
> > > > > > <gpadgett(a)redhat.com>,
> > > > > > "Doron Fediuck" <dfediuck(a)redhat.com>,
> > > > > > vdsm-devel(a)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"
<ryanh(a)us.ibm.com>
> > > > > > > To: vdsm-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> > > > > > > Cc: "Mark Wu"
<wudxw(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Dan
> > > > > > > Kenigsberg"
> > > > > > > <danken(a)redhat.com>, "Greg Padgett"
> > > > > > > <gpadgett(a)redhat.com>,
> > > > > > > "Doron Fediuck" <dfediuck(a)redhat.com>,
"Alon Bar-Lev"
> > > > > > > <alonbl(a)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 <alonbl(a)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".
Agreed. It took a little getting used to for myself (mostly because
of
the 'I would prefer you didn't submit this'), but I think a -1
with comments is much more valuable than a 0 with comments. If I
leave a
0 with comments, I feel that I'm telling the maintainer that I don't
feel strongly enough to force the submitter to change the code.
Using -1 or +1 is similar to Ack and Nack, which give an affirmative
yes or
no. Should this patch be merged in its current form? That's a
binary
question, hence the need for a +1 or -1.
I disagree in that regard.
There is a huge difference between discussion and rejection.
Having the scale of -1, 0, +1 and not using 0 for discussion actually narrow the scale by
30% to -1, +1.
ACK - is a complete ACK to be merge "If I was the maintainer I would have
submitted".
NAK - is a complete NACK "If I was the maintainer I would have rejected".
ACK/NAK are methods of decisions for the entire patch, not for iterative discussion, nor
for bookmark what I've reviewed.
Maybe in future the scale will be larger... -3...+3, so unprivileged user get -2..+2, then
minor comments can be at -1..+1 range, but we are not there.
I don't like we narrow the scale in vdsm in 30%...
Alon.