Quoting Ilia Mirkin (2018-03-22 15:16:18) > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Dylan Baker <dy...@pnwbakers.com> wrote: > > Quoting Ilia Mirkin (2018-03-21 17:39:14) > >> Just one bit of feedback, for the rest I either agree or have no opinion: > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > * unfit and late nominations: > >> > * any rejections that are unfit based on the existing criteria can > >> > be merged as long as: > >> > * subsystem specific patches are approved by the team > >> > maintainer(s). > >> > * patches that cover multiple subsystems are approved by 50%+1 > >> > of the maintainers of the affected subsystems. > >> > >> I don't think 50% + 1 is workable. That would mean for a core mesa > >> patch, one would have to get like 5+ people to ack it. Seems like a > >> lot. (And I suspect will lead to debates about how to count "affected" > >> subsystems.) IMHO 2 is enough, i.e. the maintainer that wants it, and > >> another maintainer who thinks it's reasonable. > > > > What do we do if two maintainers say yes, but it breaks another driver? I'm > > asking because we've had these sort of problems in the past. > > An explicit NAK from any maintainer kills the whole thing. I believe > this should apply to all patches, not just these "unfit and late > nominations" category. At least that's what makes sense to me. Ideally > the two warring factions will come to some agreement, but it's not the > release manager's responsibility to resolve these conflicts. > > -ilia
That makes sense to me.
signature.asc
Description: signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
