httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?
Date Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:04:52 GMT
At 05:33 PM 10/13/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 5:15 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
>>You haven't read a single email on this thread.  The ENTIRE POINT
>>of this thread is that we have a radical change.  Auth.  Two Bills
>>and who knows whom all else may concur that we can't reasonably
>>force this change  into 2.0 for docs and upgrade reasons.
>Ten binding votes were cast for this change with the understanding that it might break
backwards compatibility.  Only one binding vote was cast for the aaa rewrite being in 2.1.

First, anyone can vote.  Only committers have vetos.

2.0: rbb, brianp, dreid, gstein, jim, rederpj, striker, trawick,
     ianh, gs, bnicholes
2.1: dpejesh, chris, aaron, hb

Note that neither Bill voted, apparently that would be six votes for 2.1.
But you are ignoring that striker has already implicitly voted against
2.0 by releasing 2.0.42 sans auth changes.  And I released 2.0.43
sans auth changes.

I said, I'm not vetoing without three strong -1's on this code.  I'm not
certain Bill's concerns are addressed.  I'm not certain Aaron's are
addressed.  After I get strong -1's, I'll personally veto.  Then we can
resume the 2.1 branch discussion as a separate point.

And I would like to see what rbb creates for documentation.  That
will affect my -1, at least.

>Personally, I think the consensus of the group was clear.  -- justin

This was the very definition of a non-consensus decision.

Main Entry: con·sen·sus 

1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports...
from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
<the consensus was to go ahead>
© 2002 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

View raw message