Re: [Libreoffice-qa] minutes of ESC call ...

On Friday 15 of February 2013, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@suse.com> 
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
 l.lunak@suse.cz