[Libreoffice-qa] minutes of ESC call ...

[Jack Leigh]

On 21/02/13 18:13, Jean-Noël Rouvignac wrote:
> 2013/2/21 Lubos Lunak <l.lunak at suse.cz>
>
>> On Thursday 21 of February 2013, Michael Meeks wrote:
>>> Hi Lubos,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 15:01 +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
>>>>   All I'm saying is that 'do not merge' is vague enough to not say what
>> it
>>>> in fact does or where the line between -1 and -2 is, and 'I disagree
>> with
>>>> the change, needs discussion first' or similar is clearer there and
>> still
>>>> reasonably short.
>>>
>>>        So can you propose a better string ? how about this one:
>>>
>>>                "block merging for now"
>>>
>>>        Which is brief, open-ended, uses merge not submit and describes the
>>> function of -2 perhaps better to both reviewer and reviewee.
>>
>>   This is again vague enough to apply to -1 as well (-1 is also "block
>> merging
>> for now"). I did propose already one string I think is better, but if you
>> want to put it this way, then it should be e.g. "block merging until
>> objections are cleared" or so.
>
>
> How about "Do not merge, let's discuss the approach" or "Do not merge,
> let's discuss the design"?
> This is inviting and explains that the code won't be merge as without
> discussing the design.

In this vein -1 is currently 'This need' and it should surely be 'This 
needs'.