Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <465C456B.9000104@roguewave.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 09:23:23 -0600
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
Organization: Rogue Wave Software
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070221 SeaMonkey/1.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE RESULT] commit-then-review vs review-then-commit policy
References: <46520C7C.7020702@roguewave.com>
In-Reply-To: <46520C7C.7020702@roguewave.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It's been well over 72 hours so it's time to tally up the vote:
everyone prefers to go option #1 (below). I will go ahead and
update the stdcxx web page accordingly.

> [ ]  All committers follow Commit-Then-Review for safe changes,
>      Review-Then-Commit for potentially breaking changes. What
>      constitutes a breakng change is a judgment call to be made
>      by each committer. The rule of thumb is that changes which
>      involve advanced/sophisticated C++ features, C99 features,
>      or optional POSIX (and other) extensions may cause breakage
>      on some platforms.


The vote detail is as follows:

6 votes strongly in favor of option #1 (above) and 0 against:

   Andrew Black
   Anton Pevtsov
   Farid Zaripov
   Liviu Nicoara
   Martin Sebor
   Bill Rowe

0 votes in favor of option #2 (see the [VOTE] thread), 1 neutral,
and 4 against. 1 and 1/2 vote in favor of option #3, 1 neutral,
one against.

Thanks
Martin