Re: [libvirt] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] pvpanic: rename to isa-pvpanic
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:50:43AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Laszlo Ersek <lersek(a)redhat.com> writes:
> On 08/21/13 19:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 21/08/2013 19:07, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
>
>>> NACK
>>
>> You know that a single developer's NACK counts nothing (it can be you,
>> it can be me), don't you?
>
> going meta...
>
> What's this?
>
> All I know (... I think I know) about patch acceptance is that Anthony
> prefers to have at least one R-b. As far as I've seen this is not a hard
> requirement (for example, maintainers sometimes send unreviewed patches
> in a pull request, and on occasion they are merged).
I look very poorly on anyone nacking anything. I value constructive
feedback.
Nacking does not add any value to the conversation. I admire the fact
that we've been able to maintain a very high level of conversation over
the years on qemu-devel and throwing around nacks just lowers the
overall tone.
In that case, what's a good way to clarify that one is opposed to the
idea, not the implementation?
We have Acked-by: versus Reviewed-by: on the positive side,
and I was looking for something like this on the negative
side.
If you can't think of anything better to say than NACK, don't even
bother sending the email in the first place.
I did add motivation too, it was snipped in the response.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
>
> No words have been spent on NAKs yet (... since my subscription, that
> is). Is this stuff formalized somewhere?
>
> Sorry for wasting time...
>
> Thanks,
> Laszlo