On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 00:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > > > So far I have have vetoed the change and given reasons which other people > > > have supported. You have failed to convince me to lift the veto. Thus > > > under current apache rules the change needs to be reverted. At least > > > thats my understanding of http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html > > > > This was a [VOTE] - not a commit or code change, but a plan on how > > the next release should behave. > > Actually it was a veto on the code change that was ignored. I have not voted > in the "vote" at all.
I think this threas is about [VOTE] target-less build files And the vote resulted in a majority +1. You can vote any implementation of this feature - if you have valid reasons and a better implementation. Any veto on the grounds that this feature shouldn't be implemented is IMHO invalid. And if Stefan really want his implementation accepted, I think the rules for revolutions allow a majority to accept the code in. But even without 'revolution', I think the requirements for a veto include a proposal for a better solution to implement the feature ( at least for features that had been voted ). Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
