Hi All: It seems to me that we are misusing the term veto. A release cannot be vetoes, it can be VOTEd on with a -1, which is not a veto, but is usually interpreted as one, by me, at least, as a courtesy to my fellow PMD member for putting the time in to care.
You can -1 a commit which is not really a veto either because the change as already happened and requires someone to do the reverting. So maybe we should not get all hung up on vetoes. My beef around here is how $%@^ hard to is make publish a release :( Gary On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM, James Carman <jcar...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote: > > On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:36 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > In which case, vetoing the commit that causes the problem makes more > > sense, surely? > > > > Perhaps we should set up a Sonar rule to catch stuff like this to save you > the trouble of trolling the SVN commit log messages. > > The veto was unnecessary. It's a wonder we keep any committers around > here. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
