Return-Path: 
 <new-httpd-return-7639-apmail-new-httpd-archive=apache.org@apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org
Received: (qmail 61852 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2000 02:01:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
list-help: <mailto:new-httpd-help@apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:new-httpd-unsubscribe@apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:new-httpd@apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org
Received: (qmail 61838 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2000 02:01:34 -0000
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 19:08:09 -0700
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
To: new-httpd@apache.org, jim@jaguNET.com
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main http_core.c
Message-ID: <20000903190809.V3278@lyra.org>
Mail-Followup-To: new-httpd@apache.org, jim@jaguNET.com
References: <39B1AEC4.77960A90@Golux.Com>
 <200009031244.IAA05868@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <200009031244.IAA05868@devsys.jaguNET.com>;
 from jim@jaguNET.com on Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 08:44:24AM -0400
X-URL: http://www.lyra.org/greg/
X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

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.

1) The original veto is: <20000816121015.L17689@lyra.org>
2) It references: <20000816120925.K17689@lyra.org>
3) More veto clarification: <20000817162831.S17689@lyra.org>
4) Additional response: <20000817174246.X17689@lyra.org>

<the checkin-in-question occurred>

5) I clarified/reiterated my reasoning in: <20000829160639.A22160@lyra.org>
6) And one more time: <20000829201855.J22160@lyra.org>


I believe that is all that I sent on the matter based on my quick search.
But I've always felt that it was enough and provided enough reasoning. It
was never a simple "I don't like that" veto. I also agree that any veto
needs some support. In this case, Ryan felt my reasoning was invalid and
ignored the veto.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/