You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> on 2000/09/03 03:52:04 UTC
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main http_core.c
http_protocol.cutil_filter.c
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.
> I asked at least three times on the public list if I could commit
> the patch to fix the current bugs, and I recieved NO ANSWER
> at all.
This is not a place where silence gives assent.
> No, it doesn't seem right. And yet, you posted a veto with no real
> explanation. The explanation that kept coming up was "We designed
> this together a long time ago." According to the Apache guidelines:
>
> -1 No. On issues where consensus is required, this vote counts as a
> veto. All vetos must include an explanation of why the veto is
> appropriate. A veto with no explanation is void.
>
> The explanation of "this is how we designed it", when at least
> two people are saying the design is wrong, is not a valid veto.
Yes, it is. The proper response is to post a correction to the
design, not patches to the code.
> Don't try to change history by saying I just declared it
> invalid. I tried to work within the system for a long time
> before I just stepped over the roadblock.
Bzzzt. Sorry, no-one is immune to roadblocks, no matter how
irksome they may be.
Can you please post the message IDs of these multiple requests
for clarification you made? I can't find them..
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
"Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main http_core.c
Posted by 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/
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main http_core.c
http_protocol.cutil_filter.c
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> > > The explanation of "this is how we designed it", when at least
> > > two people are saying the design is wrong, is not a valid veto.
> >
> > Yes, it is. The proper response is to post a correction to the
> > design, not patches to the code.
>
> The changes to the design were posted. I posed design changes, and a
> patch one day, and then an updated patch the next day.
And if there wasn't consensus that the design changes were correct
and acceptable, they don't take effect automatically.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
"Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main http_core.c http_protocol.cutil_filter.c
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> > The explanation of "this is how we designed it", when at least
> > two people are saying the design is wrong, is not a valid veto.
>
> Yes, it is. The proper response is to post a correction to the
> design, not patches to the code.
The changes to the design were posted. I posed design changes, and a
patch one day, and then an updated patch the next day.
> Can you please post the message IDs of these multiple requests
> for clarification you made? I can't find them..
I'll post them later today.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------