On 3 Jan 2003, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@apache.org> writes:
> > If I thought we'd realistically have LOCK support in a month, I
> > wouldn't have proposed this. But, I don't see that happening. So,
> > I'd hope that people who are saying -0.95 are volunteering for writing
> > LOCK right now. You don't get to veto something without proposing to
> > help devise an alternative. =)
>
> I don't know where that rule came from, but I've certainly never heard
> of it before. What's being vetoed, or anyway strongly objected to, is
> the proposal that we deliberately misimplement a part of the DAV
> standard.
>
> And the alternative proposal is: don't do that :-).
That rule kind of comes from the Apache developers. It is usually
considered rude to veto something and not offer to help fix the problem or
at least offer a alternative solution to the problem. However, that is
usually because a veto is for code not a concept. If you are veto'ing
code that implements a specific feature, you should have a good reason for
the veto, which means that you are also likely to have another option for
how to implement the same feature. If your solution resolves your veto
(it obviously does) and it solves the original problem, then cool. But,
this isn't code that is being veto'ed, it is the idea that it is ever a
good thing to willfully violate a published spec.
For those people suggesting that SVN violate the LOCK method, please
consider how you would feel if somebody did that you. As an example,
please take a look at: http://httpd.apache.org/info/aol-http.html. This
is how the Apache developers felt in 1996 when AOL decided to violate the
HTTP spec. It isn't 100% identical, but it is close enough.
Ryan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 4 01:53:10 2003