On Thu, 2018-03-22 at 16:24 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote: > 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.
This also makes sense to me. -- Br, Andres _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
