Peter Donald wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:45, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>>As someone already pointed out, CVS is not the place to do battle. I do
>>not
>>want to see a bunch of commit messages with "Revert" as the only word.
>>Any
>>time something is reverted, there has to be more explanation. *WHY* was
>>it
>>reverted?
>
> Same reason things are always reverted. They ignored a veto.
Taking from our guidelines (the relevant parts that apply).
Just in case someone wonders what Peter means.
"All product changes to the currently active repository are subject to
lazy consensus."
"An action requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3 binding
+1 votes and no binding vetos. An action requiring majority approval
must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1
votes. All other action items are considered to have lazy approval until
somebody votes -1, after which point they are decided by either
consensus or majority vote, depending on the type of action item."
"-1 "No." On issues where consensus is required, this vote counts as a
veto. All vetos must contain an explanation of why the veto is
appropriate. Vetos with no explanation are void. No veto can be
overruled. If you disagree with the veto, you should lobby the person
who cast the veto. Voters intending to veto an action item should make
their opinions known to the group immediately so that the problem can be
remedied as early as possible."
"Doubtful changes, new features, and large scale overhauls need to be
discussed before committing them into the repository. Any change that
affects the semantics of an existing API function, the size of the
program, configuration data formats, or other major areas must receive
consensus approval before being committed."
"A committed change must be reversed if it is vetoed by one of the
voting members and the veto conditions cannot be immediately satisfied
by the equivalent of a "bug fix" commit. The veto must be rescinded
before the change can be included in any public release."
-oOo-
The point of contention is "All vetos must contain an explanation of why
the veto is appropriate. Vetos with no explanation are void."
Maybe next time clearly state the -1, the reason, and put it also in the
revert commit message.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
