From: Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] doc/developer: Reviews must be constructive Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 19:26:21 +0200 Message-ID: <CABLWnS-Rpu10UstEOdyt4SWwOJHcdw0yr3CM=TCayEfOduchcw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <169297702590.20400.2202310309151021276@lain.khirnov.net> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 5:24 PM Anton Khirnov <anton@khirnov.net> wrote: > Quoting Rémi Denis-Courmont (2023-08-25 17:09:55) > > Le perjantaina 25. elokuuta 2023, 17.58.40 EEST Anton Khirnov a écrit : > > > > And then sometimes an argument has been argued to death previously > and > > > > there is really no point to rehash it again and again. If people > cannot > > > > agree, they should refer to the TC, not brute force the review > through > > > > overwhelming insistance. > > > > > > I think we just have different interpretations of the word > > > 'constructive' here. > > > I certainly agree that some patches are just not acceptable - I > certainly > > > did not mean to imply that there must be a way forward for all patches. > > > > I think that you do not agree with the generally accepted meaning of > > "constructive" in this context. By definition a review cannot be > constructive, > > as in helpful or conducive of a way forward, if it argues that there are > no > > ways forward. > > Explaining why a patch is not acceptable is helpful IMO. > Saying 'no', on the other hand, is not. > that is true, but saying "no" and preventing some bad code from making it in the codebase is better than not saying anything > Maybe you meant "supported" or "corroborated". > > Might as well describe it in more than one word, since apparently it's > so unclear. Would you be in favor of something along the lines of > > Nontrivial (i.e. other than cosmetics or accepting the patch) reviews > must be based on technical arguments. If the reviewer fails to provide > arguments for rejecting the patch or requesting changes, then the > review may be disregarded. > I agree with the text suggested, but I don't understand why it needs to be set in stone in the first place... -- Vittorio _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-25 17:26 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-08-24 19:56 [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] doc/developer patch review improvements Michael Niedermayer 2023-08-24 19:56 ` [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] doc/developer: Reviews must be constructive Michael Niedermayer 2023-08-25 1:56 ` Vittorio Giovara 2023-08-25 6:46 ` Nicolas George 2023-08-25 9:22 ` Paul B Mahol 2023-08-25 17:23 ` Vittorio Giovara 2023-08-25 14:06 ` Anton Khirnov 2023-08-25 14:22 ` Rémi Denis-Courmont 2023-08-25 14:58 ` Anton Khirnov 2023-08-25 15:09 ` Rémi Denis-Courmont 2023-08-25 15:23 ` Anton Khirnov 2023-08-25 17:26 ` Vittorio Giovara [this message] 2023-08-25 17:35 ` Anton Khirnov 2023-08-25 17:34 ` Leo Izen 2023-08-25 17:39 ` Nicolas George 2023-08-24 19:56 ` [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/2] doc/developer: Code pushed without patches on ffmpeg-devel must be announced on the ML Michael Niedermayer 2023-08-24 20:04 ` Andreas Rheinhardt 2023-08-25 15:34 ` Michael Niedermayer 2023-08-25 15:36 ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf 2023-08-25 15:47 ` Paul B Mahol 2023-08-25 16:27 ` Nicolas George 2023-08-25 16:33 ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf 2023-08-25 17:16 ` Nicolas George 2023-08-25 17:25 ` James Almer 2023-08-25 17:42 ` Nicolas George 2023-08-25 21:41 ` Ronald S. Bultje 2023-08-24 20:06 ` James Almer 2023-08-24 20:23 ` Andreas Rheinhardt
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='CABLWnS-Rpu10UstEOdyt4SWwOJHcdw0yr3CM=TCayEfOduchcw@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=vittorio.giovara@gmail.com \ --cc=ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone: git clone --mirror https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev/0 ffmpegdev/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 ffmpegdev ffmpegdev/ https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev \ ffmpegdev@gitmailbox.com public-inbox-index ffmpegdev Example config snippet for mirrors. AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git