httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main http_core.c
Date Mon, 04 Sep 2000 14:00:02 GMT
Greg Stein wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 08:44:24AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > > rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > > > > Do you suddenly have the ability to decide what is a valid
> > > > > veto or not? Do you get to decide what is "technical enough"
> > > > > or not? Do you get to decide whether my premises are valid?
> > > > 
> > > > No, but I do get to decide that after three weeks of asking for
> > > > a technical reason (which should prove that I don't see the
> > > > reason for the veto) and not recieving ANY response, I can
> > > > commit without worrying about it being backed out.
> > > 
> > > Um, no, you don't get to decide that.  Nobody does.
> > > 
> > Vetos without a supporting rationale aren't really vetos though. I veto
> > with the reason "I don't like it" can't be considered a valid veto.
> 
> That was Ryan's characterization, not my actual reasoning.

As noted in my email, it was _NOT_ my intent that say that your
reasoning was in the 'I don't like it' mode. It was simply a
generic point that vetos require valid reasons. Again, I
was staying out of the specifics :)

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
                "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"

Mime
View raw message