apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Woolley <cliffwool...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/threadproc/unix thread.c
Date Thu, 07 Jun 2001 00:02:06 GMT
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



   Cliff Woolley
   Charlottesville, VA

View raw message