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

Re: [RFC,PATCH] Port libsvn_auth_kwallet to KDE3.

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:52:03 -0400

Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> writes:
> Karl Fogel wrote:
>> "Justin Erenkrantz" <justin_at_erenkrantz.com> writes:
>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com> wrote:
>>>> Sorry, I meant: I was addressing them as well as you, as there has
>>>> sometimes been confusion over what "-1" means and whether it's the same
>>>> as what "veto" means in other projects.
>>> IMO, a "-1" is always a veto unless otherwise stated. -- justin
>> Sure, as long as people remember that "veto" just means "strong
>> objection and possibly (but rarely) forced vote".
> Sorry, what? A veto on technical grounds is always a veto. This wasn't
> a policy discussion; it was a technical issue. A vote on technical
> issues to overturn a veto is, to put it mildly, a bit like political
> interests overriding hard facts. Then the polar icecap melts. ...

In the end, all consensus processes must have either voting or forking
as a fallback. It's not like there's some third way. If an objection
is technical, then the discussion to resolve it should be based on the
technical issues -- but if that discussion were to fail to resolve it,
then there isn't any magical solution available, other than voting.
Some magical philosopher king is not going to show up and give everyone
the answer. Barack Obama will not save your project.

When I say "there is no such thing as a veto in Subversion", what I mean
is that there is no unilateral right to make something happen or not
happen against the will of a majority of developers. Some people
apparently thought otherwise, but now they know better.

A so-called "veto" or "-1" is just a way of stopping momentum and
getting everyone to discuss something carefully; it would be ludicrous
for it to mean "someone can prevent a change forever just by invoking a
magic word". That would be silly: it would invite abuse and be an
unsuccessful form of governance.

I don't think you were advocating that, and so am not sure you actually
disagree with what I was saying. But if you do disagree, please
explain in detail how you envision a veto process working. As far as
I'm aware, the way I described in this thread is the way we have in fact
been doing things all along.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-12 09:52:19 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.