On 03/06/2015 05:42 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > 1) i'd like to propose the introduction of the code review score -3. > > rationale: it's quite common that a particular patchset is so broken > that it must not be merged. this is typically done by giving a -2 score, > in particular when it's needed to counterweight a pre-existing +2 score > (yes, people tend to overlook -1 given after approval). > however, -2 scores are "sticky" - even a new patchset stays -2. the > reason for that is the double meaning of -2: it represents "this is > inherently broken" as well. i'd like to decouple this, resulting in the > following negative scores: > > -1: "I would prefer this is not merged as is", advisory, non-sticky > -2: "This shall not be merged as is", blocking, non-sticky > -3: "This shall not be merged [at all]", blocking, sticky
This makes sense under the assumption that there are patches of which you can be almost 100% sure that they are completely unfixable by whatever the author could come up with in the new patch set (including considerable changes to the concept). Is that something that happens reasonably often? Christian _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
