On 1 April 2018 at 13:24, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > Please go on IRC, its where most developers talk, exchange ideas, information, discuss patches and so on. This patch was discussed there, and users and developers have had requests for this patch for over a year, all on IRC. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
