On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 8:05 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 4, 2016, at 3:02 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> >> wrote: >> >> If consensus here agrees that no out-of-spec behavior should be tolerated >> anymore, I'll jump on board. I'm already in the consensus block that says >> we should not ship a new major.minor without disallowing all of this >> garbage. >> >> It would be helpful if other PMC members would weigh in yea or nay on >> dropping out-of-spec behaviors from 2.4 and 2.2 maintenance branches. >> >> >> That would be weird. One of us is going to create a patch. That >> specific patch is >> going to be voted upon for backport. If anyone wants to veto it, they >> are free >> to do so with justification. >> > > You don't seem to comprehend the idea behind consensus, which is what I'm > appealing for. You first among them all were perfectly happy to champion > stupid > design considerations as 'beyond Bill's authority' as a committer and > reviewer, > and sadly while I sat in the chair of httpd and got to eat dirt. > > I'm not trying that again, httpd 2.0 does not entirely compile against apr > 2.0-dev, > and likely never will due to this stalemate. > > I'm entirely willing to invite vetos with my code, if I wasn't I wouldn't > commit. > But if you go back through the archives, you will realize several of you > were > entirely on the wrong side of problem-solving. If you would personally like > to invite vetoes, please be our guest. > And FWIW you were on record that a veto does not demand a justification, so let that settle in.
