From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Reviewing changes Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:22:08 -0500 Message-ID: <87prkqdii7.fsf@red-bean.com> References: <87y6zggnmz.fsf@red-bean.com> <87d4grbcc0.fsf@red-bean.com> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1227162154 27036 80.91.229.12 (20 Nov 2008 06:22:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 06:22:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 20 07:23:36 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1L32wx-0004g0-No for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:23:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57013 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L32vo-00056E-TI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:22:24 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L32vg-00054k-KE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:22:16 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L32ve-000538-4H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:22:14 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57293 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L32vd-00052q-Qf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:22:13 -0500 Original-Received: from sanpietro.red-bean.com ([66.146.193.61]:39153) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L32vb-0002vd-H6; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:22:11 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39531 helo=floss) by sanpietro.red-bean.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L32vY-0000gh-TM; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:22:08 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 20 Nov 2008 06:17:41 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:105846 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > If there's no agreement to have a review process, I can simply ignore >> > your review. >> >> Of course. Would that be a problem? > > It makes the whole review process unreliable and inefficient. It is already unreliable and inefficient. This is about making more reliable and efficient, though not perfectly so.