Rostislav Pehlivanov (2018-04-01): > > lgtm > Thanks, pushed
I think some clarification is required about reviews. "LGTM" means "looks good to me". I insist: "me". When Paul writes "LGTM", it means the patch looks good to Paul, not anybody else. If Paul is the maintainer of the affected piece of code, of if he is an expert about that kind of code, then his LGTM is enough to go ahead. If the patch is simple and does not involve any policy choices, then all is needed is a second pair of eyes to find the obvious mistakes, and anybody's LGTM is enough to go ahead. But if the patch is complex or if it involves a policy choice, then a single LGTM is not enough. You need to ensure that the patch does not look BAD to anybody, and for that you need to leave time for all developers to look at the patch. Half a day is not enough, even discounting that if was a week-end half-day, and even more so a feast day for some. I do not think it warrants reverting, but please keep that in mind for the future. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
