Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index


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'.

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.