On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:50:43AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Laszlo Ersek <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 08/21/13 19:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> Il 21/08/2013 19:07, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > > > >>> NACK > >> > >> You know that a single developer's NACK counts nothing (it can be you, > >> it can be me), don't you? > > > > going meta... > > > > What's this? > > > > All I know (... I think I know) about patch acceptance is that Anthony > > prefers to have at least one R-b. As far as I've seen this is not a hard > > requirement (for example, maintainers sometimes send unreviewed patches > > in a pull request, and on occasion they are merged). > > I look very poorly on anyone nacking anything. I value constructive > feedback. > Nacking does not add any value to the conversation. I admire the fact > that we've been able to maintain a very high level of conversation over > the years on qemu-devel and throwing around nacks just lowers the > overall tone. In that case, what's a good way to clarify that one is opposed to the idea, not the implementation? We have Acked-by: versus Reviewed-by: on the positive side, and I was looking for something like this on the negative side. > > If you can't think of anything better to say than NACK, don't even > bother sending the email in the first place. I did add motivation too, it was snipped in the response. > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > > > > > No words have been spent on NAKs yet (... since my subscription, that > > is). Is this stuff formalized somewhere? > > > > Sorry for wasting time... > > > > Thanks, > > Laszlo -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list