Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main http_core.c

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> 
> rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > 
> > > Do you suddenly have the ability to decide what is a valid
> > > veto or not? Do you get to decide what is "technical enough"
> > > or not? Do you get to decide whether my premises are valid?
> > 
> > No, but I do get to decide that after three weeks of asking for
> > a technical reason (which should prove that I don't see the
> > reason for the veto) and not recieving ANY response, I can
> > commit without worrying about it being backed out.
> 
> Um, no, you don't get to decide that.  Nobody does.
> 
Vetos without a supporting rationale aren't really vetos though. I veto
with the reason "I don't like it" can't be considered a valid veto.

True enough, what is and isn't valid is not any single person's
sole decision. In this case, I think a vote may be in order.

Finally, I'm not saying whether the veto was or was not valid, nor
am I saying that the reason provided was "I don't like it." I'm
talking generics here, not specifics :)
-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
                "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"

Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main http_core.c

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 08:44:24AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > > > Do you suddenly have the ability to decide what is a valid
> > > > veto or not? Do you get to decide what is "technical enough"
> > > > or not? Do you get to decide whether my premises are valid?
> > > 
> > > No, but I do get to decide that after three weeks of asking for
> > > a technical reason (which should prove that I don't see the
> > > reason for the veto) and not recieving ANY response, I can
> > > commit without worrying about it being backed out.
> > 
> > Um, no, you don't get to decide that.  Nobody does.
> > 
> Vetos without a supporting rationale aren't really vetos though. I veto
> with the reason "I don't like it" can't be considered a valid veto.

That was Ryan's characterization, not my actual reasoning.

1) The original veto is: <20...@lyra.org>
2) It references: <20...@lyra.org>
3) More veto clarification: <20...@lyra.org>
4) Additional response: <20...@lyra.org>

<the checkin-in-question occurred>

5) I clarified/reiterated my reasoning in: <20...@lyra.org>
6) And one more time: <20...@lyra.org>


I believe that is all that I sent on the matter based on my quick search.
But I've always felt that it was enough and provided enough reasoning. It
was never a simple "I don't like that" veto. I also agree that any veto
needs some support. In this case, Ryan felt my reasoning was invalid and
ignored the veto.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/