On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
> On 7 November 2014 03:00, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
...
> > In my mind, we have code. Start the release process. If it gets (3) +1
> votes
> > for release, then it goes out the door. Pretty simple. Is it just that
> some
> > people don't want Feature A in that release? They better find a
> > good/technical reason to veto, then. And that will only pause it, until
> the
> > problem is resolved.
> >...
> Actually, I have used my veto on the log addressing feature two months ago
> [1].
>
> Also I proposed to implement major FSFS performance related changes in
> the experimental FSX format that also going to be released in Subversion
> 1.9.
>
> The full log-addressing feature story with detailed explanation of my
> technical reasons is given in the same thread [2].
>
Those emails were not very concrete, on what your specific issues are. With
your commit of r1637184, I'm going to use my VP hat and state that whether
that past veto is valid or not, had reasons or not, is now considered
closed. I want to see us all get past the back/forth and the ambiguity. So
consider these last few months closed, and we will start anew.
Second part: vetoes may be applied at any time before a release, on any
change going into that release. It does matter whether the change was
applied yesterday, or six months ago. Thus, Ivan: if you still want to
apply to veto to a change, then please (re)state it now, and the community
can resolve it moving forward from today.
Thanks,
-g
ps. to be clear: I'm not overruling/overriding anybody's PMC rights, but
just taking a step to *restart* the discussion from a clean slate. Just
reissue/restate if a veto is necessary (which I'm also hoping it won't be).
Received on 2014-11-15 02:28:28 CET