[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: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:43:10 -0400

Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> writes:
> I'd much rather not use the word "veto" at all in that case,
> and substitute "flustered hand-waving and shouting" instead. Or
> explicitly say, for example, that "a veto can only be overridden by a
> qualified majority vote of full committers" -- checks and balances,
> bla bla.

Most of the confusion here stems from the use of the word "veto", yeah.
We inherited the word from Apache; we'll probably continue using it, or
"-1", in ways that confuse newcomers for years :-).

Terminology aside, there shouldn't be anything confusing about the
method I've been describing, which is a classic "consensus process with
voting as a fallback" scheme in which anyone has the option to force a
vote (and therefore virtually never does).

> At the end of the day, if disagreements about technical decisions are
> violent enough to cause an overriding vote, don't you think that
> whoever raised the veto and had subsequently been stomped on would
> leave and/or fork anyway?

Leave for losing a vote? I doubt I would ever do that. Maybe some
people would, but it's their option; the system shouldn't force it.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-13 08:43:26 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.