On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Jeff Darcy <jdarcy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes that will help. Are you saying we add it in the comments when we give '-1'?> I absolutely hate what '-1' means though, it says 'I would prefer you
> didn't submit this'. Somebody who doesn't know what he/she is doing still
> goes ahead and sends his/her first patch and we say 'I would prefer you
> didn't submit this'. It is like the tool is working against more
> contributions. It could also say 'Thanks for your contribution, I feel we
> can improve the patch further together' on -1 too you know.
When it comes to what -1 means, I've noticed quite a bit of variation
across the group. Sometimes it means the person doesn't want it merged
*yet* because of minor issues (including style). Sometimes it means they
think the whole idea or approach is fundamentally misguided and they'll
need significant convincing before they'll even look at the details. (I
tend to use -2 for that, but that's just me.) It's definitely bad the
way the message is worded to imply that mere *submission* is unwelcome.
If Gerrit supports it - sadly I don't think it does - I think we could
have a much more constructive set of -1 reasons:
* Needs style or packaging fixes (e.g. missing bug ID).
* Needs a test.
* Needs fixes for real bugs found in review.
* Needs answers/explanations/comments.
* Needs coordination with other patch XXXX.
Alternatively, we could adopt an official set of such reasons as a
matter of convention, much like we do with including the component
in the one-line summary. Would that help?
--
Pranith
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
