On Thu, 4 May 2017, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Stepping back a bit: It is indeed important that our code is easy to
> understand and modify, expresses its intent clearly, and helps future
> programmers avoid writing bugs. But it is also important that
> contributors feel valued, and feel a sense of owne
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: differing opinions between maintainers vs patch acks"):
> On 04.05.17 at 14:44, wrote:
> > Well, at one level I agree with Andrew on at least the 1*1 and 0*8
> > question. These seem clearer to me as they state the programmer's
> > intent as well as merely the effect. I
On 04/05/17 13:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.05.17 at 14:44, wrote:
>> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: differing opinions between maintainers vs patch
>> acks"):
>>> Taking this example, as you have called it out, but without going into
>>> the details.
>>>
>>> I accept that the issues under debat
>>> On 04.05.17 at 14:44, wrote:
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: differing opinions between maintainers vs patch
> acks"):
>> Taking this example, as you have called it out, but without going into
>> the details.
>>
>> I accept that the issues under debate do not have any impact on the
>> technical
On 04/05/2017 13:44, "Ian Jackson" wrote:
>Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: differing opinions between maintainers vs
>patch acks"):
>> Taking this example, as you have called it out, but without going into
>> the details.
>>
>> I accept that the issues under debate do not have any impact on the
>>
Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: differing opinions between maintainers vs patch
acks"):
> Taking this example, as you have called it out, but without going into
> the details.
>
> I accept that the issues under debate do not have any impact on the
> technical correctness of the fix. Once compiled/ass
On 04/05/17 08:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
> All,
>
> it's been a (not very often, but anyway) recurring situation that in
> order to get an ack on some patch I had to make adjustments which
> I didn't agree with. Since all maintainers opinions are supposed to be
> equal, it is not really clear to me wh
On 04/05/2017 10:55, "Ian Jackson" wrote:
>Jan Beulich writes ("Re: differing opinions between maintainers vs patch
>acks"):
>> On 04.05.17 at 11:21, wrote:
>> > I'm afraid I disagree. Someone with a fresh perspective is often
>> > helpful, even if it involves a bit more explanation.
>> >
>>
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: differing opinions between maintainers vs patch acks"):
> On 04.05.17 at 11:21, wrote:
> > I'm afraid I disagree. Someone with a fresh perspective is often
> > helpful, even if it involves a bit more explanation.
> >
> > And, the use of committers as referees in inter-ma
>>> On 04.05.17 at 11:21, wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("differing opinions between maintainers vs patch acks"):
>> When there's an odd number of maintainers for a given piece of
>> code, it may be acceptable to pull in a 3rd maintainer to break ties,
>> but pulling in a non-maintainer (e.g. some [
Jan Beulich writes ("differing opinions between maintainers vs patch acks"):
> When there's an odd number of maintainers for a given piece of
> code, it may be acceptable to pull in a 3rd maintainer to break ties,
> but pulling in a non-maintainer (e.g. some [other] committer) to
> help out seems n
All,
it's been a (not very often, but anyway) recurring situation that in
order to get an ack on some patch I had to make adjustments which
I didn't agree with. Since all maintainers opinions are supposed to be
equal, it is not really clear to me whether in such cases it should
really be the revie
12 matches
Mail list logo
