river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Brouwer <mark.brou...@cheiron.org>
Subject Re: development process
Date Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:14:35 GMT
Hi Ron,

Ronald J Mann wrote:
> 
> Mark Brouwer wrote On 08/30/07 11:18,:
> 
>> Ronald J Mann wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>> I don't think this means that the entire collective need vote on any and
>>> all changes prior to committing, which I agree seems idiotic.  I think
>>> what it does mean is that any putback requires a second committers
>>> public assent.
>>>    
>>>
>> Hi Ron, does this mean that you also see value in Bob's process idea or
>> do you consider RTC as described at the ASF website as sufficient?
>>  
>>
> <snip>...</snip>

> To be clear, my comments here are around changes to the underlying
> implementation which are presumed to have no/insignificant impact on the
> specs.

Thanks for writing this down. I agree with what you wrote and I like the
'story behind it'. Although I can't predict the outcome of this
discussion (anxiously awaiting Jim's proposal), whatever it is I believe
it would be good to capture the motivation behind it as part of the
documented process for others to understand the rationale.

>        I'm a tad confused on the who owns the spec issue, but assuming
> this group has the authority, full blown spec changes I believe demand
> that the full group vote and would certainly demand RTC as well.

Me to, I hope once we brought this one to an end we can tackle that one.
-- 
Mark



Mime
View raw message