On 10/02/2012 10:02 AM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
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.
--
Cheers
Douglas