On Fri, 22 May 2015 01:51:49 -0500 William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]> wrote:
> It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4 > years or so, and only was delayed in 2.2 due to the unavoidable drift > between trunk/2.4 and 2.2 flavors. We already included the > ported-afterwards functionality in the previous 2.4.12 release, with > apparently no issues. The patch below is actually the origin of the > enhancement. In those circumstances it seems not so much CTR or RTC but rather commonsense to go ahead. Don't we have a bit of a history of struggling to meet RTC criteria on Windows-specific backports? I wonder if there's a case for formally adopting a lazy-consensus policy based on what wrowe is doing here? If a proposal has sat in STATUS for a qualifying period, without attracting comment/ reservations, but also without attracting sufficient review +1s, should it be eligible for lazy-consensus backport? The proponent posts here on a "speak now or forever hold your peace" basis, and goes ahead if no discussion calls it into question. -- Nick Kew
