[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: When to call txn_checkpoint().

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2003-02-21 07:06:01 CET

Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> > OH, I know just trying to couch my opinion a little:-) But I can't +1
> > -1 right?
> Of course you can, keeping in mind that any veto (-1) needs technical
> argumentation. At least that's how I've always understood our unwritten
> policy.

Any technical veto will be listened to, whether from a committer or
not. *Formally* the procedure only applies to full committers, yes,
but that's not a formality that we've really invoked much, as things
have worked out quite fine with informal list discussion.

(I'm just pointing it out in case it should ever be an issue later. A
voting policy where the only qualification for joining the electorate
is the ability to sign up on a mailing list would be a pretty absurd
result, one must admit :-) ).

These rules aren't as unwritten as one might think, as we just adopted
the Apache guidelines:


However, it's true we haven't been following them very closely, and
probably won't unless some conflict forces us to :-).


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 21 07:39:45 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.