httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brad Nicholes" <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r563196 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Date Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:57:16 GMT
>>> On 8/6/2007 at 12:28 PM, in message
<>, "Justin
Erenkrantz" <> wrote:
> On 8/6/07, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
>> Ummm... These didn't have 3 +1 votes.
>> So why were they applied and committed??
> I think for platform-specific code we've been okay with a smaller
> consensus than 3.
> If our only two NetWare guys agree on the change, then I doubt the
> rest of us have anything to add to the conversation.  And until
> recently, we only had one NetWare-savvy committer; so we're making
> progress towards getting 3.  =P  -- justin

Not to stir the pot or anything, just to add some context, until recently when we gave faunkg
commit rights on the httpd and apr projects, I was the only NetWare maintainer.  As such,
you never really saw any NetWare backports hit the status file because I just commited them.
 Yes, the patches flowed through trunk first, but nobody really noticed because nobody really
cared, other than me.  If I had proposed the backports, I would have never achieved 3 +1's
on anything.  Now that we have another NetWare person, I feel that NetWare backports should
be seen in the status file and voted on within a reasonable time period (lazy concensus, so
to speak).  This is what I instructed faunkg to do with the NetWare patches that he wanted
to backport to 2.2.  But even in this situation there are now only two of us, so at best a
NetWare backport will only get 2 +1's and with my time for doing reviews or anything else
related to Apache, becoming more limited, even that is stretching it.  I think that there
are sometimes when lazy consensus needs to override strict RTC.  NetWare is one of them. 
So for now like Justin said, at least 2 +1's is better than nothing. :)

Just my thinking,

View raw message