Works for me. On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 5:11 AM Damjan Marion (damarion) <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> 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> 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> 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> > 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> 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 > >>> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> vpp-dev mailing list > >> vpp-dev@lists.fd.io > >> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > vpp-dev mailing list > > vpp-dev@lists.fd.io > > https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev > > _______________________________________________ > > csit-dev mailing list > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > csit-dev mailing list > 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
