Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] pvpanic: rename to isa-pvpanic

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:50:43AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Laszlo Ersek <lersek@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