Code review comment for lp:~vanvugt/mir/no-SurfaceBufferAccess
Revision history for this message
| Cemil Azizoglu (cemil-azizoglu) wrote | # |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
35a32c5
(Get the code!)
> I am disappointed. Although still waiting for more votes, quietly confident
> that a larger sample size will yield more approvals.
>
> It's really important that we push for simplifications where they can be made.
> Complexity scales exponentially with code size and so does maintenance burden.
> So it's in everyone's interest to strive to simplify where possible.
When there are disapprovals on an MP, it's best to get those addressed/removed before expecting others to join in and review. When there are existing disapprovals and some refrains, especially after an MP has been up for a while, a 'refrain' should be considered equivalent to 'disapprove', or otherwise they'd join in the discussion with their point of view if they don't agree with the disapprove. Just my observation so far on how the review process works.