Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 18819 invoked by uid 6000); 9 Jan 1998 20:59:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 18799 invoked from network); 9 Jan 1998 20:59:54 -0000 Received: from paris.ics.uci.edu (mmdf@128.195.1.50) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 9 Jan 1998 20:59:54 -0000 Received: from kiwi.ics.uci.edu by paris.ics.uci.edu id aa24021; 9 Jan 98 12:54 PST To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: Where to now In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 09 Jan 1998 12:48:49 PST." Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 12:45:31 -0800 From: "Roy T. Fielding" Message-ID: <9801091254.aa24021@paris.ics.uci.edu> Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org >Lazy Voting requires just as much extra work on the part of the patch >writer. And since Lazy Voting essentially means apathetic voting that >work is wasted. I agree with that -- my feeling was that lazy voting wasn't working very well, other than to give the impression that people could stop a commit before it happened. I don't think it justified the cost. The cost/benefit of forced voting is clear (people review the code or nothing happens). Unfortunately, nothing happens too often, and for no good reason (unlike the early days, when lack of votes almost always meant the patch sucked). ....Roy