On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:20:35PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:23:23PM -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > That's what I originally thought too, but it turns out that's not what
> > "concept" +1's mean. Rather, they mean you basically approve of this
> > specific patch, but have one or two concerns you want to discuss
> > before giving full approval. (See the STATUS file about this.)
> >
> > I don't know what the concept +1 meant for this change, but since it
> > already had three +1's, and one of 'em was mine, I'm not gonna worry
> > about it too much :-)
>
> Somehow I get the general feeling that gstein is voting under and
> entirely different system then everyone else. That's why I asked.
The problem is that +1 (concept) is supposed to mean "yah, sounds great,
but I haven't reviewed it yet to give a real +1". Instead, the rules in
STATUS are "off", shall we say, and are saying that means something else.
+1: I agree and will help make it happen
+1 (concept): I agree with the concept, not sure about your impl (yet)
+0: seems alright
-0: don't like, but go ahead if you feel it's for the best
-1: veto. let's discuss.
In STATUS, the +1 (concept) has been warped to mean that the person has
reviewed the code. That isn't necessarily a requirement to agree with the
concept of the change. When I initially voted, I put in a number of +1
values saying "I agree". Later, I moderated some of them down since I
hadn't actually reviewed the code. But it seems like STATUS is saying that
I should push that all the way down to +0. That isn't right. There are a
number of things in there which I think are "okay" and have +0'd, but
there are also things which I think are Goodness(tm) and want to keep a +1
on them.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 9 00:14:55 2004