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

Re: [serf-dev] [Patch] Adding NTLM Support to Serf - Work in progress / Subversion regression

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 05:51:28 -0400

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 20.06.2013 17:27, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>...
>> Also please believe that all my technical thoughts are fair and
>> related to technical issues only. My veto above is a technical veto.
>
> Yep, it was. And I still maintain it's invalid, or at least, too naïve.

Invariably, it is *always* a poor choice to debate whether a veto is
valid or not. The veto exists as a unilateral lever against
introducing problems into a codebase. The community doesn't get to
debate the *validity*; it should work to find a solution instead.

If one/more people truly feel that the veto process is being abused by
an individual, then the conversation should move to the private@ list
and discuss the removal of that person from the PMC (and, thus, their
binding vote/veto). That is the kind of bar you must meet.

The above is the meta discussion. In short: second-guess yourself if
you ever want to debate the validity of a veto.

Now on to the concrete situation. "Is this technical?" Sure is. Ivan
has some considerations about code duplication, about standards
conformance, etc. So, done and done: it's a technical veto. Deal.

Second: it isn't even related to Subversion. We're talking about the
serf codebase, and (frankly) this community doesn't govern that
codebase. Further, it doesn't *have* to follow the ASF [voting]
guidelines (tho we've had some minor discussion about moving to the
ASF).

Third: regardless of what Ivan has stated, we'll fix the NTLM issue.
(IMO) we should not require server configuration changes simply
because a client upgraded to 1.8. And from my reading of this thread,
it also seems that "fixing" the config might break 1.7/neon users.

Lieven has suggested a fix/approach, and we'll work through that over
the weekend. He's got some time this weekend to work on the issue, and
I'll try to support his time/work. Unfortunately, the proper change
may require a bump to serf 1.3.

Given this, and other breakages in 1.8.0, it looks like we should be
prepping for a patch release next week.

Cheers,
-g
Received on 2013-06-21 11:52:01 CEST

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