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

2013/2/21 Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz>

> On Thursday 21 of February 2013, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > Hi Lubos,
> >
> > On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 15:01 +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > >  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.


How about "Do not merge, let's discuss the approach" or "Do not merge,
let's discuss the design"?
This is inviting and explains that the code won't be merge as without
discussing the design.