Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <46F1DE56.8030703@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:43:34 -0500
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tomcat Developers List <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Review model take 2
References: <46F010DB.6000704@apache.org> <46F07D29.5060006@hanik.com>
 <46F0C723.5070305@gmail.com> <46F0DAAB.2020908@apache.org>
 <46F0E4EE.6050606@gmail.com> <46F12965.2080404@hanik.com>
 <fcslq1$3l5$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <fcslq1$3l5$1@sea.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bill Barker wrote:
> 
> Remy was being really nice to the community by not requiring a vetoed patch 
> to be withdrawn.  Personally, I would go with j-f-c's position, and withdraw 
> a vetoed patch immediately (and have done so on several occations, even when 
> I got to re-apply it after enough discussion took place on the list). 
> However, I'll go with whatever the community consensus is on this point.

But isn't that statement too broad (to apply to trunk, I agree that in a
ready-to-release anytime sort of branch, disputed things should disappear
for a while)...

It's in the context.  If Joe suggests "hey, -1 to the way you presented
that, if you fix X you have my support" then it should stick a round a
while and let them sort it out.

If Joe says "this feature isn't going to be acceptable because Y", well
then there isn't much to discuss at that point, and it probably should be
backed out right away while the basic idea is debated.

Clear A/B options sometimes aren't that effective.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org