From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50945) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDXXu-000371-DE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 06:27:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDXXo-000646-Dj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 06:27:46 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56947) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDXXo-000640-4v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Aug 2013 06:27:40 -0400 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 13:29:24 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20130825102924.GD32448@redhat.com> References: <1377103396-24307-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1377103396-24307-4-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20130821170120.GA12305@redhat.com> <5214F273.9060806@redhat.com> <20130821170707.GA12410@redhat.com> <5214F38D.2020004@redhat.com> <52160770.90908@redhat.com> <87k3jdsm8s.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k3jdsm8s.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] pvpanic: rename to isa-pvpanic List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: pkrempa@redhat.com, marcel.a@redhat.com, libvir-list@redhat.com, hutao@cn.fujitsu.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com, rhod@redhat.com, kraxel@redhat.com, Paolo Bonzini , lcapitulino@redhat.com, Laszlo Ersek , afaerber@suse.de On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:50:43AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Laszlo Ersek 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