Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 15:09:47 -0700 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org> Cc: sheldonh@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/share/sgml authors.ent doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/contributors article.sgml Message-ID: <20020701150947.D25785@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> In-Reply-To: <20020701214430.880793E1E@turbine.trit.org>; from dima@trit.org on Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:44:30PM %2B0000 References: <20020701154046.GN85531@starjuice.net> <20020701214430.880793E1E@turbine.trit.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:44:30PM +0000, Dima Dorfman wrote:
> Isn't this backwards? "Reviewed by" implies "Approved by", but not
> the other way around; a maintainer (or mentor) might "Approve" a patch
> without necessarily looking at ("Reviewing") it, but someone that
> "Reviewed" a patch always "Approves" it. The text you proposed for
> the Committers' Guide has the same problem.
I'm pretty sure you're confused. "Reviewed by" just means you read the
patch and don't object to it. "Approved by" means you grant permission to
commit it based on your authority to do so (as a mentor, a maintainer, a
hat, etc). In general approval implies review, though certain exceptions
such as some doc commits during code freeze exist.
-- Brooks
--
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE9INMqXY6L6fI4GtQRAsHHAJ4nkTH8EkIUXCldQ4k8uC1OsdhMwACg34c7
nY7OKW21kWnurNL3NVGQPhM=
=2nXN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020701150947.D25785>