httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: Voting guidelines..
Date Sat, 12 Apr 1997 18:53:20 GMT
Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> I think the submittor does not count. But three +1 are usually too much for
> practice (this is the reason why most of the time a maximum of just 2 others
> are used).  The voting rules should changed this way: "There have to be a
> minimum of 2 different members who vote with +1 and which are both different
> from the submittor".

I think you are wrong. The submitter can vote +1 (and that he has is pretty
much implied by submitting the patch).

> 
> But this brings up another question I still asked a while ago: The old Apache
> Group members always say that everyone can vote and all have equal rights.

No, that's not what we say. Only members of the Apache Group can vote. Anyone
can voice their opinion on the list, of course. The slippery question is how
you get to be a member - usually by active participation, of course.

> Fine, because a democratic way. But not fine when one submits a bad patch and
> two of the loosly-coupled members say +1. Then the patch gets commited
> according to the rules and before one of the more sophisticated hackers can
> vote -1. I think the source should be split into logical parts and each part
> should get a primary maintainer. When a change happens to this part, the rules
> need also a +1 of the primary maintainer. This way we can be sure that always
> one of the guys who really know the code is one of the voters.

Forget it. Nobody consistently has the time to be "primary maintainer" for
anything.

> 
> >     Also concerning voting: How long a delay is supposed to pass between
> >     achievement of a quorum and commission of the change?
> 
> Good question. When the delay is too short there is a chance that there are
> commits which actually would receive a -1 from one the old hackers.  But if
> the delay is too long, it slows down the development process dramatically
> (because if too commits are waiting one had to either prevent one from
> changing this part of the code or later have to do a merge).
> 
> In practice I think 4 days are practical, because this way one can away over
> the weekend and still have a change for voting.  And it is shorter than one
> working week. So the delay is acceptable for active development.

One of the points of introducing CVS was to remove the delay between creating
a patch and it being incorporated. Patches can always be reversed.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie                Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435  Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
Freelance Consultant and  Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director        URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
A.L. Digital Ltd,         Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
London, England.          Apache-SSL author

Mime
View raw message