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

On 21/02/13 18:13, Jean-Noël Rouvignac wrote:
> 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.

In this vein -1 is currently 'This need' and it should surely be 'This 
needs'.