OK I think a pretty clear proposal is taking shape -- I'll call a vote. We've kinda discussed it to death now...
Mike On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/26/10 8:23 AM, Robert Muir wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Mark Miller <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> It's not that simple. If you want to commit a patch without having >> it reverted, you *do* have to do certain things - currently, you >> have to attempt back compat. Or don't commit. You guys seem to think >> its a free for all. Its obviously not. Their are general guidelines >> we all follow, formed by consensus. Committers are not just doing >> whatever they want. >> >> >> And we should make it easier for people to contribute. Perhaps back >> compat is a feature that isn't everyone's itch to scratch, you know, >> just like any other feature. This would make it easier for people to >> contribute/commit improvements to lucene (into the unstable only), and >> perhaps there would be more committers and contributors after a while. >> >> Right now its a pretty high bar for someone to contribute an >> improvement, and I think the back compat requirement is a big part of >> that. >> -- >> Robert Muir >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > That's why we are talking about a proposal that would change our back compat > commitments. > > -- > - Mark > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
