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

Re: svn commit: r1501371 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/util_error.c

From: Ben Reser <ben_at_reser.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 20:02:21 -0700

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_apache.org> wrote:
> A veto not accompanied by a technical reason is invalid. I am seeking
> consensus on the dev@ list that no technical reason was given. No one
> is going to strip anyone's bits.

Daniel is right on this one:
"To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be
accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change is bad
(opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A
veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."

What's not clear is who decides that a veto is without justification.

That said I don't really see how Bert's veto is without justification.
Received on 2013-07-10 05:02:58 CEST

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