Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.co.il> writes:
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote on Sun, 8 Jun 2008 at 22:07 +0200:
>> 2008-06-06 06:40:25 Daniel Shahaf napisał(a):
>> > Arfrever,
>> >
>> > Do you still veto this patch?
>>
>> OK. I recollected that r21480 had removed support for Neon 0.24, so we could
>> easily remove support for deprecated KDE 3 (e.g. immediately after creating
>> the 1.6.x branch) without breaking any compatibility rules.
>>
>> I will consider changing my vote.
>
> "Consider"? Wow, sounds like you need to hold a Council of War or
> something. Please tell us tomorrow at this hour what you decided.
Er, I just want to remind everyone of something:
There is no such thing as a "veto" in Subversion.
At least, not in the sense that some people are assuming in this thread.
In the Subversion project, "veto" just means one, or sometimes both, of
the following:
1) "Please stop this change, or revert it if necessary, so we can
discuss it further, because I feel there's something seriously
wrong with it and we need time to hash it out."
2) "I consider this change so bad that I'll insist we formally vote
on whether it stays."
So really, the only magical power a full committer has is the power to
force a formal vote -- if he genuinely thinks it's that important.
But voting is *very* unusual. I only remember two votes in the entire
history of the project: one was about whether to call the command-line
client "sub" or "svn", and the other was about whether or not to use
space-before-paren style when formatting C function calls :-).
(For the record: my side "won" in the first vote, but lost in the second
vote. 50/50 isn't so bad, I guess.)
If Arfrever *really* wants to force a vote on this, he can, in theory.
Personally, I hope he won't, because voting is a pain, and because it's
pretty clear from the thread that almost everyone is in favor. The only
way to change their minds would be to present some new argument they
haven't heard yet; but I assume if Arfrever had such an argument, he
would have deployed it by now.
We try to operate by consensus: by the time a change goes in, either
everyone's comfortable with it, or else those who have objections have
had a chance to present them and have now learned to live with the
inevitable. Arfrever, my guess is you'll probably be in the latter
category for this particular patch. I hope that's okay. Life is long
-- there will be many, many more decisions like this.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-09 00:06:57 CEST