Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> We have a relatively large/active dev community here. I might suggest that
> changes to 1.0.x require four or five +1 votes, rather than just three.
>
> There were a number of changes voted on for 1.0 that *very* quickly got
> the necessary three +1 votes and *bam* got checked in. While a veto can
> always yank those, it gets a bit troubling (socially) to do that.
Hmmm. That's true, but it was mostly due to an overtly organized
effort to get people to review changes. The changes were approved
quickly simply because all those reviews happened in parallel; but the
total desired amount of review/care still took place.
Personally I'm comfortable with 3 votes, and feel that offers enough
protection. But if there's a general sense among the committers that
we want to be even more conservative in patch releases, I'm happy to
go along with that. Thoughts?
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 19 17:43:16 2004