"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>And, that, I believe jeopardizes the overall quality of the code. >>And, I'm not willing to take that risk. > > I entirely agree - stability of the already-done version 2.0 is > paramount to me. However we need to make some edge case expections > for that code which only one or two voulenteers are familiar with. > e.g. Win32 service code is only known by 4 members, Novell by only > one, and ldap only three of us ever pay attention. > > 'Platform maintainers' should have some way to get measurable and > tested code improvements back into 2.0.
I have ambivalent feeling toward this. If the same rules were applied to docs project, Japanese translation would be dead long time ago, at least on 2.0 branch. Thanks to the exception made for docs, 2.0 Japanese translations are almost as good as 2.1 ones. So I do understand the pain of working on something not majority of people have interest. It takes some time to get even one +1 (except the one from the original translator) for Japanese translation because only three people are working on Japanese translation and only two of them are committers. But I also want 2.0 to remain stable and seeing mod_rewrite regression happened even with current model, it's hard for me to tell which one is really better. At the moment, I'm +1 on this given that the waiting period is long enough. As I understand it, current proposal says that even -0 would prevent the lazy consensus. If no one is bothered enough to give -0 on the matter, it probably should go in. -- Yoshiki Hayashi
