From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Reviewing changes Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:30:25 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87y6zggnmz.fsf@red-bean.com> <87d4grbcc0.fsf@red-bean.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1227191490 25487 80.91.229.12 (20 Nov 2008 14:31:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:31:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kfogel@red-bean.com, cyd@stupidchicken.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 20 15:32:29 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 1L3AYW-0006R8-6d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:30:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55701 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L3AXN-0002FD-8K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:29:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L3AXB-00029D-JX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:29:29 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1L3AXA-00028k-My for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:29:29 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54229 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L3AXA-00028W-C3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:29:28 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:35270) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L3AX8-0008IS-Qa; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:29:26 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqoEADgDJUlMCrcy/2dsb2JhbACBbdArgnyBFg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,639,1220241600"; d="scan'208";a="30090744" Original-Received: from 76-10-183-50.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([76.10.183.50]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2008 09:29:24 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 66C18B40D7; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:30:25 -0500 (EST) 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: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:105856 Archived-At: >> > 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. I don't follow you. We already have code reviews, just rarely so. And we can already ignore them, they're already unreliable. Stefan PS: In practice, we don't seem to ignore them, tho (maybe because they're rare, but still).