Greg Stein <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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
STATUS doesn't say +1 means that... (?)
+1 means you've reviewed the specific change, and think it is good be
> +1 (concept): I agree with the concept, not sure about your impl (yet)
The "concept" concept was discussed here with Justin Erenkrantz:
He described it somewhat differently from this... The current text of
the STATUS file was written based on what Justin said in that thread.
> +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.
I also originally thought that "concept" meant "I like the idea".
Justin corrected me, said it meant something else, something that did
include a code review. I assumed he was taking a conventional meaning
from httpd-land, and that therefore you would be using the same
meaning. Now you say that you think it means what I *originally*
thought it meant!
+1 on ditching the fscking concept concept altogether, and just using
"+0" (w/ discussion) to indicate non-binding approval :-).
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Fri Jan 9 00:34:55 2004