You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> on 2004/01/08 00:23:36 UTC
Re: svn commit: r8181 - branches/1.0-stabilization
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 06:15:14AM -0600, gstein@tigris.org wrote:
> Author: gstein
> Date: Wed Jan 7 06:15:12 2004
> New Revision: 8181
>
> Modified:
> branches/1.0-stabilization/STATUS
> Log:
> more votes. fix strength of some prior votes. a bit o' formatting.
>
> Modified: branches/1.0-stabilization/STATUS
> ==============================================================================
> --- branches/1.0-stabilization/STATUS (original)
> +++ branches/1.0-stabilization/STATUS Wed Jan 7 06:15:12 2004
[snip]
> @@ -370,6 +371,7 @@
> Justification: Obvious doc string typo, no risk.
> Votes:
> +1: kfogel, jerenkrantz, jszakmeister
> + +1 (concept): gstein
I'm a bit confused. How can you be +1 (concept) on a single line typo
fix in the documentation? Either the fix is correct and should be done
or it is wrong and shouldn't be done. Or you just don't care which
would be +0 or -0. My understanding is +1 (concept) means you're okay
with the idea but not necessarily the implementation.
--
Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r8181 - branches/1.0-stabilization
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> writes:
> Somehow I get the general feeling that gstein is voting under and
> entirely different system then everyone else. That's why I asked.
I don't get that feeling at all. His understanding of the purpose of
a veto matched mine pretty closely, at least (learned this from the
date parser thread).
People will probably attach slightly different nuances to the "+0" and
"concept" votes, but I don't think that matters so much. The general
idea is usually clear, and anyway they don't affect the formal vote
count.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: vote meanings (was: svn commit: r8181 -
branches/1.0-stabilization)
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Thursday, January 8, 2004 4:40 PM -0600 kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>> +1 (concept): I agree with the concept, not sure about your impl (yet)
>
> The "concept" concept was discussed here with Justin Erenkrantz:
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/BrowseList?list=dev&by=thread&from=
> 142955
>
> He described it somewhat differently from this... The current text of
> the STATUS file was written based on what Justin said in that thread.
I don't think Greg's definition is all *that* different from what I said.
In that thread you cited above, my '+1 (concept)' definition was:
<http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=53440>
> So, the +1 (concept), as I see it is more of a "Yeah, this patch sounds
> right; but I need more time to review."
*shrug* -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: vote meanings (was: svn commit: r8181 - branches/1.0-stabilization)
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.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
merge.
> +1 (concept): I agree with the concept, not sure about your impl (yet)
The "concept" concept was discussed here with Justin Erenkrantz:
http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/BrowseList?list=dev&by=thread&from=142955
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.
Agreed.
> 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.
Arrgh :-).
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 :-).
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
vote meanings (was: svn commit: r8181 - branches/1.0-stabilization)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:20:35PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:23:23PM -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > That's what I originally thought too, but it turns out that's not what
> > "concept" +1's mean. Rather, they mean you basically approve of this
> > specific patch, but have one or two concerns you want to discuss
> > before giving full approval. (See the STATUS file about this.)
> >
> > I don't know what the concept +1 meant for this change, but since it
> > already had three +1's, and one of 'em was mine, I'm not gonna worry
> > about it too much :-)
>
> Somehow I get the general feeling that gstein is voting under and
> entirely different system then everyone else. That's why I asked.
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
+1 (concept): I agree with the concept, not sure about your impl (yet)
+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.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r8181 - branches/1.0-stabilization
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Wednesday, January 7, 2004 11:20 PM -0800 Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>
wrote:
> Somehow I get the general feeling that gstein is voting under and
> entirely different system then everyone else. That's why I asked.
Note that I'm probably using the same voting system as gstein. ;-) (I'm
willing to guess Sander might be, too...)
FWIW, my educated guess is that the concept in this case is because Greg
didn't verify that the parameters match the implementation. But, I could
be wrong... -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r8181 - branches/1.0-stabilization
Posted by Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:23:23PM -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> That's what I originally thought too, but it turns out that's not what
> "concept" +1's mean. Rather, they mean you basically approve of this
> specific patch, but have one or two concerns you want to discuss
> before giving full approval. (See the STATUS file about this.)
>
> I don't know what the concept +1 meant for this change, but since it
> already had three +1's, and one of 'em was mine, I'm not gonna worry
> about it too much :-)
Somehow I get the general feeling that gstein is voting under and
entirely different system then everyone else. That's why I asked.
--
Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r8181 - branches/1.0-stabilization
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> writes:
> I'm a bit confused. How can you be +1 (concept) on a single line typo
> fix in the documentation? Either the fix is correct and should be done
> or it is wrong and shouldn't be done. Or you just don't care which
> would be +0 or -0. My understanding is +1 (concept) means you're okay
> with the idea but not necessarily the implementation.
That's what I originally thought too, but it turns out that's not what
"concept" +1's mean. Rather, they mean you basically approve of this
specific patch, but have one or two concerns you want to discuss
before giving full approval. (See the STATUS file about this.)
I don't know what the concept +1 meant for this change, but since it
already had three +1's, and one of 'em was mine, I'm not gonna worry
about it too much :-)
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org