Branko Čibej wrote on Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 06:32:25 +0100:
> On 04.11.2014 17:58, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > You still have, and always will have, the option to raise a veto. With
> > arguments. About specific problems in the code. I've asked you to do
> > that uncountable times. So now please don't try to hide behind
> > community decisions and raise that veto already, so that we can
> > discuss it and bring this sad state of affairs to an end.
>
> Just to be clear: A vote would not in any way change your, or anyone
> else's, opinion of the log-addressing feature; we'd get some +1 votes
> and some -1 votes, and maybe the vote would pass or maybe not. But it
> would not solve any real problems.
>
> Compare this to our backport voting, where -1 /is/ a veto, with all the
> consequences and requirements to make it valid.
>
> That is why I said that a vote makes no sense for code that's already on
> trunk; but a veto does.
Agreed, let's focus the disussion back on specific technical problems.
"We should have a vote because we decided to" is correct, but it's one
level too meta. We wanted a vote to solicit review; so, instead of
calling a vote, let's cut to the chase and directly solicit review.
I suggest that Stefan starts a [CALL FOR REVIEW] thread, pointing out
that the feature is no longer a moving target, and asking (a) anyone
with outstanding technical concerns to point them out; and (b) anyone
who has reviewed the feature and believes it is release-quality, to
state so explicitly.
Such a thread would achieve what the vote was meant to achieve, I think.
Daniel
Received on 2014-11-06 00:03:43 CET