+1 -Maciek
On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:11, Damjan Marion (damarion) <damar...@cisco.com<mailto:damar...@cisco.com>> wrote: I think simply allowing “Change Owner” to do -2 on his own change should address all issues here as only person who put -2 can remove it. (you remember that i had to ping you to remove -2 on one change as I was not able to merge it…) On 18 Oct 2016, at 20:32, Keith Burns <alaga...@gmail.com<mailto:alaga...@gmail.com>> wrote: But if the contributor -1 it then I'm ok putting -2 on it as a lock if I'm a committer on that project. You can make drafts public but all that will do is force folks who like that feature (private draft) to go to github where we don't get our CSIT/verify jobs. (Drafts are an easy way to check for CSIT compliance before publish. Just add JJB as reviewer) On Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 11:24 AM Edward Warnicke <hagb...@gmail.com<mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm fine with -2, except for the problem that a contributor who is not a committer cannot -2 their patch (only committers have -2 or +2). Ed On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan) <mkons...@cisco.com<mailto:mkons...@cisco.com>> wrote: +csit-dev And I asked for this merge :( Agree that -2 is best way forward. Will ask csit-dev folks to follow this practice too from now onwards. -Maciek > On 18 Oct 2016, at 18:51, Damjan Marion (damarion) > <damar...@cisco.com<mailto:damar...@cisco.com>> wrote: > > > Hey Dave, > > It can happen to anybody. I’m the first one who will do the same. > > That’s why I’m suggesting that we stop that practice. “-2” is hard lock which > will prevent merging it in until reviewer revokes it. > > D. > >> On 18 Oct 2016, at 19:29, Dave Wallace >> <dwallac...@gmail.com<mailto:dwallac...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Damjan, >> >> My bad -- sorry 'bout that. Not my best day at multi-tasking :-( >> >> For those patches like the csit operational testing patch that I just >> merged, I prefer -2 so everyone can see the status of tests and help out if >> possible. >> >> I agree with Ed, that transparency is very important for community >> development. >> >> Thanks, >> -daw- >> >> On 10/18/16 1:13 PM, Damjan Marion (damarion) wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> We just got 1st DO_NOT_MERGE patch merged in. >>> >>> Can we going forward stop this practice, and use “-2” or Drafts instead? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Damjan >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> vpp-dev mailing list >>> vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> >>> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> vpp-dev mailing list >> vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> >> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev > > _______________________________________________ > vpp-dev mailing list > vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev _______________________________________________ csit-dev mailing list csit-...@lists.fd.io<mailto:csit-...@lists.fd.io> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/csit-dev _______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev _______________________________________________ csit-dev mailing list csit-...@lists.fd.io<mailto:csit-...@lists.fd.io> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/csit-dev
_______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
