apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@ebuilt.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/threadproc/unix thread.c
Date Thu, 07 Jun 2001 00:17:21 GMT
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 08:02:06PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> The group has told me before that, since all code matters require a
> consensus, -1 always means veto.  If you really, really, really don't like
> it but don't want to veto it, use -0.5 or -0.99 or something.  =-)  Only
> in non-consensus-requiring matters do -1's count as "negative votes", but
> those matters seem to only exist in administrative matters, not code
> matters.

Ah.  Okay.  I thought I've seen people say "-1 (non-veto)" before.  Fine,
consider my vote -0.99999 (because I'm that close to vetoing it, but 
I'm not going to do that).  Hopefully, my intention *not* to veto 
is and was clear.  My apologies.

FWIW, I'm emailing Dave privately to see if we aren't that far off
on what we want re: sms and pools...  -- justin

View raw message