C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 22:52:03 -0400:
> On 08/04/2011 09:47 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
> > On the veto issue, it's odd that Greg is veto a revert of a commit change
> > that originally occurred on trunk and is now sitting on the branch. It
> > does seem odd one can veto the move back to the original default
> > implementation.
> >
> > Just wondering, couldn't we veto the commit that made serf the default?
>
> Eh... sounds like politickin'... let's not go there, please.
>
> The Subversion committers have consistently demonstrated a keen ability (and
> desire) to work out our differences quickly and without even resorting to
> something as formal as a vote. I mean, I can count on one hand the number
> of such votes ... maybe on one finger, even! I'm not even quite sure that a
> call for vote in this situation was really necessary, as we already have a
> mechanism in place for addressing the technical question before us (the
> 1.7.x/STATUS voting system). To the degree that we can avoid resorting to
> mere rule-by-the-majority and continue working toward peaceful consensus,
> the greater Subversion community benefits.
Agreed!
Received on 2011-08-05 05:00:25 CEST