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

On Thursday 21 of February 2013, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Lubos,
>
> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 15:01 +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > >   Heh; so "do not merge" is the equivalent of "do not submit" but much
> > > clearer and friendlier, fits inside the text limit.
> >
> >  Huh? Friendlier? Clearer??? It says pretty much the same.
>
>       It's hard for me to unwind the overlapping meanings here; do you mean:
> it was not worth changing it ? (to which I disagree), or that it is not
> sufficiently friendier ? (which could of course be improved), or ?

 I was refering to the one sentence quoted above, claiming that in "do not 
merge" and "do not submit" one is clearer, friendlier, or even different at 
all (given that gerrit seems to use submit for what I would call merge).

> >  All I'm saying is that 'do not merge' is vague enough to not say what it
> > in fact does or where the line between -1 and -2 is, and 'I disagree with
> > the change, needs discussion first' or similar is clearer there and still
> > reasonably short.
>
>       So can you propose a better string ? how about this one:
>
>               "block merging for now"
>
>       Which is brief, open-ended, uses merge not submit and describes the
> function of -2 perhaps better to both reviewer and reviewee.

 This is again vague enough to apply to -1 as well (-1 is also "block merging 
for now"). I did propose already one string I think is better, but if you 
want to put it this way, then it should be e.g. "block merging until 
objections are cleared" or so.

-- 
 Lubos Lunak
 l.lunak@suse.cz