2008-06-09 00:06:41 Karl Fogel napisał(a):
> 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.
I never used word "veto" :)
> 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.
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
Received on 2008-06-11 22:05:12 CEST