Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-36715-apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive=cloudstack.apache.org@cloudstack.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3AD2E10507
	for <apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:03:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 89473 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jun 2013 16:03:30 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@cloudstack.apache.org
Received: (qmail 89438 invoked by uid 500); 28 Jun 2013 16:03:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@cloudstack.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.cloudstack.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received: (qmail 89430 invoked by uid 99); 28 Jun 2013 16:03:30 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:03:30 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jburwell@basho.com designates
 209.85.216.49 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.216.49] (HELO mail-qa0-f49.google.com) (209.85.216.49)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:03:25 +0000
Received: by mail-qa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id hu16so684029qab.15
        for <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=google.com; s=20120113;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer
         :x-gm-message-state;
        bh=3fARBO4bXUobr8IVt1b0MRdY89M1ja3hOYNgLxl0d2A=;
        b=jHGWJV6cEU4UKjHpcY2arCgErA0lIO3XQK0LeXhffFDJ5Ximqc5WPBdQzmc8VzZxeG
         BheGUEGg9liz3mSksV7YIkpw7olhopwlSqJ4Gk0+Sf89dikCwDTLN6rsU6uSSAAZfyxA
         tNiv4bhRvOG1NWMjbPz3tae7iV3hdU/vawiy0M0Sfxzux99RTEMxxGTGhrI80/rhdlnf
         ELWJV4BMqZwYStxs36F/6/F4TN0dE8amkN9/1+SPnyLV6VtuYQ9c+swYoB0pnRUuaYKD
         NN+dg/i8Ttzq34X4fs5i/T/EM4UIW+27uxQw+QXv0h08k0jSd+chHhGkt3wIp19KTUQe
         PM3Q==
X-Received: by 10.49.132.69 with SMTP id os5mr18282499qeb.48.1372435384822;
        Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.5.103] (ip-64-134-242-122.public.wayport.net.
 [64.134.242.122])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
 i1sm11984008qas.10.2013.06.28.09.03.03
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Subject: Re: object_store Merge
From: John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com>
In-Reply-To: <F283CB36-4C88-46C0-BF04-169694F07E62@basho.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:03:06 -0400
Cc: Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com>,
 Min Chen <min.chen@citrix.com>,
 Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <55222F25-8EAC-4A55-915C-E43F5B5E4392@basho.com>
References: <F283CB36-4C88-46C0-BF04-169694F07E62@basho.com>
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Gm-Message-State: 
 ALoCoQn5u8h0y2Z3CrhN16zqddYgX7pXerxNqkF55bSfswo+aFmylmQ5d71rEnwp6/ZUlzmd76Ba
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

All,

One quick amendment to the compromise we worked out on Wednesday.  =
Edison and Min will resolve any issues discovered in my review, and if =
necessary, push another patch through Review Board for a third round =
review.

Thanks,
-John

On Jun 28, 2013, at 11:57 AM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com> wrote:

> All,
>=20
> We had a procedural snafu earlier this week when the object_store =
branch was merged without me removing my -1.  Animesh, Edision, Min, and =
myself discussed this issue Wednesday afternoon, and it was an honest =
misunderstanding of the rules.  Edison pushed a review request to the =
list that I didn't see.  Since I didn't respond within in 72 hours, he =
thought lazy consensus applied and performed the merge.  For this merge, =
we will leave it in master assuming that no significant issues will be =
found when I will review the patch next week.  If I do find a reason not =
remove the -1, we will burn that bridge when we come it.
>=20
> To be clear, once a -1 is lodged against a branch, it can not be =
merged until that -1 is removed.  As we have discussed on other threads, =
those placing a -1 on a merge should work with all due haste to resolve =
their issues with the merge requester.  I apologize to Edison for =
failing to see the request.
>=20
> Thanks,
> -John