httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r230592 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x: CHANGES STATUS modules/proxy/proxy_http.c
Date Tue, 09 Aug 2005 04:24:05 GMT
On Aug 8, 2005, at 5:24 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> At 06:27 PM 8/8/2005, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> Any change that hasn't been released can be vetoed if a technical
>> explanation is given.
> Roy; I -totally- agree with your position.  However, emails going
> back to 1997 of describe
> a very specific process; votes are collected, result is announced,
> extra +1's are welcome, extra -1's are invalid.

I am sure a lot of people have had an opinion on that since the
voting rules were finished in 1995.  However, the only opinion that
has ever been agreed to by the group as a whole is that a veto
is a veto and the only change it can't undo is a released change.

In particular, the voting.html file talks about a process in
which we were preparing releases once per week -- the result
of a vote meant a new release is done.  It doesn't say that
explicitly because it was assumed at that time, so the part
that you are reading about votes being invalid after the patch
selection process is done should be read as "after the release
is done".  There is a reason why the file is called stale.

I am all for cleaning up the documentation.  I am not inclined
to change our process.

> The voting.html is called out as a stale document.  Unfortunately,
> the newer and maintained
> does not issue an opinion on the matter.
> It really seems that if this is the new policy it must be set
> to stone.  Two questions in guidelines.html ask;
>  * We should clarify under what conditions a veto can be
>    rescinded or overridden.
>  * Should we set a time limit on vetos of patches? Two weeks?
> There ya go; the current guidelines don't spell it out.

No, they spell it out quite fine.  The decision on both questions
was "no".  I don't know why the questions were left in the file
after it was approved.


View raw message