On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 14:46, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > * On 2002-11-08 at 17:37, > Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say: > > > > A side effect of the 'revolution' rules is that a veto can be > > overriden - nobody can veto a revolution ( or a release ), and if > > you change the entire code base or a part of it you obviously can > > make changes that were vetoed. > > well, no -- that's not overriding the veto, because the changes > aren't getting checked into the branch where they were vetoed. > vetos are mostly (possibly completely, need to think about that) > per-branch, not per-codebase.
True. But the point is that the revolution makes it impossible to veto a certain feature or architecture or piece of code from becoming part of the product and release. And it removes the potential for abuse of the veto. If we accept the idea that the majority of committers control the release process and name - including the codebase that is going to be released - that will imply that nobody can block the majority by using vetoes. ( or control the direction of the project by vetoing everything but his own view ). Finding "technical reasons" is not very hard - and most of the times a veto without a very clear reason ( like: it breaks the HTTP spec, or "it makes things slower" or anything that can be verified ) will result in conflicts and tensions. Costin
