On Friday 15 of February 2013, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Michael Meeks <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 16:16 +0100, Eike Rathke wrote: > >> > + "Do not submit" -> > >> > "I would prefer this not to be committed in this state." > >> > >> While the rewording for -1 is fine with me and in general also better > >> describes why a -1 is given, I'm not satisfied with the "-2 Do not > > > > I think we changed -2 to "do not merge" instead after some > > private discussion with Norbert :-) I think the consensus is that we > > shouldn't be using -2 unless there is something drastically wrong. > > For the record: > > Although -1 'description' has been toned down, it is _still_ the > preferred and recommended way to express that a patch should not be > push as is. > > -2 is essentially a veto on the 'idea' of the patch. -1 get reset when > a new version of a patch is uploaded, whereas -2 are 'sticky'.
That should be made more obvious in the wording then. I normally use -1/-2 as the reverse of +1/+2 and the current 'do not merge' is vague enough to mean anything in that direction. It should include 'I disagree with the change' or similar. -- Lubos Lunak [email protected] _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
