[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] doc/developer: Reviews must be constructive

[Leo Izen]

On 8/25/23 11:09, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le perjantaina 25. elokuuta 2023, 17.58.40 EEST Anton Khirnov a écrit :
>>> And then sometimes an argument has been argued to death previously and
>>> there is really no point to rehash it again and again. If people cannot
>>> agree, they should refer to the TC, not brute force the review through
>>> overwhelming insistance.
>>
>> I think we just have different interpretations of the word
>> 'constructive' here.
>> I certainly agree that some patches are just not acceptable - I certainly
>> did not mean to imply that there must be a way forward for all patches.
> 
> I think that you do not agree with the generally accepted meaning of
> "constructive" in this context. By definition a review cannot be constructive,
> as in helpful or conducive of a way forward, if it argues that there are no
> ways forward.
> 
> Maybe you meant "supported" or "corroborated".
> 

FWIW I read it the same way Anton did but if it's unclear then perhaps 
it could be modified. Essentially, I think what's going on is we don't 
want "NAK" without a reason. If you want to say a patch shouldn't make 
it in, there should at least be a reason. Even if the reason is "this 
API/module has no place in FFmpeg."

- Leo Izen (Traneptora)