httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <>
Subject Re: Releases, showstoppers, and vetos
Date Wed, 06 Feb 2002 21:59:25 GMT
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:33:52PM -0800, Roy Fielding wrote:
> > I add a showstopper to STATUS. One other person says "-1, that's
> > not a showstopper". By my interpretation of the rules, they CANNOT
> > demote it from showstopper until there are enough people who would
> > vote to release (more +1s than -1s). This means that in order to
> > demote it, there would have to be two -1s to offset my +1.
> A showstopper is just an issue!

The term "showstopper" has taken on new meaning, and I disagree that it
is as simple as an "issue". Having misunderstood and not well defined
terms like this is the reason we keep having discussions about release
procedures, voting, and showstoppers. Why don't we define these terms
once and for all and then work toward some guidelines so we're all on
the same page. Here are some terms that I would like defined:

feature (vs. a bug)

> Damnit guys, if you can't figure this out
> I am going to remove the whole category from STATUS as being obviously bad
> for your brain cells.

That would be an unfortunate situation, since I think making the distinction
between critical and non-critical bugs and features is important for group
communication. I would veto it if someone tried to merge the categories.

> A problem that is a showstopper is simply AN OPINION
> that there won't be a majority +1 approval of a release until it is fixed.

Votes are expressions of opinions. Showstoppers communicate how those
opinions would affect a release.

> Obviously, if there is *ANY* debate on whether or not something is a
> showstopper, then it doesn't belong in that category -- it doesn't
> become a showstopper until it has the effect of stopping the show.
> It is just an opinion until someone calls for a vote.

No. STATUS is the only place we have to maintain current information
about the status of the project. If a showstopper has the potential
to stop a release, then STATUS is the correct place to tally the
"opinions" (votes) about that particular entry. The final tally
of that vote will determine if that issue would stop the show.

> The only person who can declare an issue as being a showstopper is the RM,
> since they are the one waiting until after the fix is made before creating a
> tarball.

IMO, this is incorrect. A tarball can only become a [public] release
by majority approval. If there are issues that would prevent that approval,
then they are by definition showstoppers.

> Otherwise, they are free to ignore *any* issue that doesn't
> involve an outstanding veto on HEAD.  Those are the rules that we've lived
> by for a long time now, and there is no way in hell that I'll support the
> notion that anyone can stop a release without a formal vote.

I'll agree with that. In the end it comes down to one thing:
majority approval for releases. Everything else is coordination.


View raw message