On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 06:54:45PM -0500, William Rowe wrote: > At 05:28 PM 8/6/2005, Joe Orton wrote: > >That patch went through the normal 2.0.x review process and received > >three +1s and no vetoes. You absolutely cannot come along a few months > >later and say "oh, actually, -1" and rip stuff out that you now decide > >you don't like. > > It received 3 +1 votes, a slim review. It was never released, > so it's not in fact 'done'. If unreleased changes are incorrect, > they need to be fixed, or needs to be reverted.
If you now think the changes are incorrect then you need to go through the review process to correct them. We've done this before. > > You missed the chance to veto > > How so? > > You can't veto a release. You can veto code; certainly if there > is a 'deadline' it doesn't start until we begin talking about > released code, and that isn't the case here. No, you can't veto "code". You vote on *changes to the code*. That's what we've been doing for the last N years with 2.0. That's how the previous state of the 2.0.x branch was obtained. Again, if you think that the tree should be reverted to an older state, then you need to go through the normal process. > > -- if you want to change > >the state of the 2.0.x tree now then you need to go through > >the review process like everyone else does. > > I'll respectfully disagree, but I have to ask... You're making a complete mockery of the time and effort expended by those who maintain the 2.0.x tree. Please restore the 2.0.x tree to the state which was attained through the normal voting process by the committers, and stop arguing the toss. Then follow the process like everyone else does to try and move *forward*, not backward. I hope I speak for all the committers here. If anyone thinks this request is out of line, please speak up. > Why do you bring this up now when I mentioned that I had vetoed > the change a good three weeks ago, in STATUS, and advised on > list that it would be reverted? Because you putting random crap in STATUS is meaningless. The R-T-C process under which the 2.0.x tree is maintained is not. joe
