From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vms173005pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.5]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ou99R-0008VT-1H for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:20:46 +0200 Received: from gandalf.denix.org ([unknown] [71.251.53.61]) by vms173005.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0L8J00JVKPOU5RZ4@vms173005.mailsrvcs.net> for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:19:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: by gandalf.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2433614AF64; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:19:42 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-id: <20100910191942.GJ28148@denix.org> References: <1283453522-8408-1-git-send-email-fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com> <1284024609.28520.1446.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> <4C88EC2B.2090208@balister.org> <20100910185004.GF28148@denix.org> MIME-version: 1.0 In-reply-to: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 206.46.173.5 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: denis@denix.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Cc: tsc@openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] base.bbclass: fix soc-family test X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:20:46 -0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:55:13AM -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > >> I'd agree with this quite strongly. I'm generally pretty careful to let > > >> others review the changes from my coworkers, to avoid any bias. > > > > Not to point any fingers, but mishaps happen and numerous reverts would be > > a > > living proof of that in the repository... :) Nobody's perfect. > > > Mishaps have nothing to do with this, nor does being perfect, or reverts. > You're missing the point entirely here. The point is, if the only people > who acked a patch are from the same company as the person who wrote it, they > can't be considered to have been entirely unbiased in their review of it. Chris, Didn't mean to offend you by that joke, sorry about that. And I didn't mean you specifically, as we all had our share of revert... But in the second, important :) part of my message, which you chose to ignore and remove from the reply, I did acknowledge the problem and agreed to the proposed changes. But, as I also mentioned, there should be a failsafe mechanism to eventually accept changes, if nobody cared to comment or strongly object, after the review period is over. -- Denys