[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: Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:09:07 +0400

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
I've implemented plain NTLM authentication in r1963. While change
itself is not big, it required some refactoring/changing internal API.
So it's better to release it as serf 1.3.0, not 1.2.x.

-- 
Ivan Zhakov
CTO | VisualSVN | http://www.visualsvn.com
Received on 2013-06-28 13:10:02 CEST

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