httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <>
Subject Re: What's next for 2.2 and 2.3/trunk?
Date Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:40:18 GMT
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Graham Leggett <> wrote:

> On 04 Jun 2010, at 2:51 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>  +1 for the continued, and perhaps more widespread, voluntary soliciting of
>> approval in advance for changes which add new modules or other significant
>> new function, or make other widespread changes, or change prerequisites in a
>> meaningful way, or have been discussed in the past without resolution (or
>> with outright rejection), etc., etc.  (We don't need an explicit laundry
>> list, or any additional policy, to codify the practical matter that multiple
>> developers need to be ready and willing to cope with such changes when they
>> reach the user base).
>> This has been done countless times by numerous people in this successful
>> decade, in spite of, and even for the continued viability of, the C-T-R
>> policy.
> This creates an artificial "two tier" hierarchy of committers, those who
> regularly "approve" changes, and those who don't.

Some people have more time and energy to read through more proposals and
give their 2 cents one way or another.  The important point isn't "approve"
but "review and comment."  Also, this is self-selecting so I don't see the
issue of merit.

A new person arriving here is certainly not going to feel confident enough
> to step in and "approve" a change. What they'll see is a small group of
> people "approving" changes made by a larger group of people, and they'll
> naturally fall into the second "tier".
> The ASF is a meritocracy, and someone attains committership by proving
> their merit to the point where they are invited to become committers:
> Where this has started to become a problem is when committers in the "first
> tier" feel their "seniority" is enough basis for an objection to a code
> contribution.

sounds like a PMC issue to me

> All committers are equal, and no matter how long a committer has been
> around, they have to provide a justification for their objection to a piece
> of code just as thoroughly thought out as the original committer is expected
> to be thorough with their original contribution.

Equality is not the issue.  I think I can describe the same conflict you are
referring to in these very different terms:

* some members of the community ask for feedback from their peers before
making "big" changes; I think this implies that these members of the
community are not interested in making the change unless there is reasonable
agreement that it is a good thing to do, independent of any specific
technical detail

* some members of the community make "big" changes without looking first for
the group sense of whether the change is generally accepted to be a good
thing; I think this implies that these members of the community feel that
their change should be in the server unless there is a specific reason to
veto it

This is not a black and white issue;"big" is in the eyes of the beholder,
and there's no fixed membership in the two camps.  These are just two
philosophically different approaches related to the conflict you are
discussing, and I think individual developers remain mostly in the same camp
over time.

View raw message