apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/threadproc/unix thread.c
Date Thu, 07 Jun 2001 03:03:06 GMT
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 08:02:06PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > I think the thing is that I've seen the sms as slightly different than
> > what it was originally posted as.  So, I might be in the minority
> > here. I think we are seeing two different views of what an sms should
> > be.
> >
> > My -1 was non-veto, so it doesn't stop you.  It just registers my
> > dissent.  -- justin
> 
> 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.

Exactly.

-1 is a veto when it comes to code. And as a committer [Justin], you have
veto rights.

Non-committers can vote however they'd like. It is even encouraged. Their
votes are non-binding, but it can help the committers decide on a plan of
action.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mime
View raw message