On Feb 15, 2013 3:25 PM, "Greg Stein" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 09:11:13AM -0500, Rob Weir wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:31:43PM -0500, Rob Weir wrote: > > >>> Obviously the changes to Calc's POWER() function did not go well. > > >>> > > >>> IMHO, we need to better respect the rare but powerful veto option that > > >>> committers have: > > >>> > > >>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto > > >>> > > >>> When a committ is vetoed, it should be reverted quickly. Remember, a > > >> > > >> No. This is flat out incorrect. > > >> > > >> A veto means you cannot *ship* with that change in there. It can stick > > >> around as long as necessary, but must eventually be pulled out when > > >> the code is shipped. > > >> > > > > > > > > > If this is true then you have a Foundation document which is incorrect > > > and needs to be changed, since it is totally out of synch with what > > > you are saying: > > Not surprised. > > > And Greg, just to be perfectly clear and to avoid any misunderstanding > > here, I'm not arguing against your interpretation. If that is the > > consensus view then I'm happy to adopt it as my own. I'm just > > pointing out that you have a prominent page on the website that, to > > the uninitiated, appears to say something entirely different. Phrases > > like "forces it to be reverted" and "may not be overridden nor voted > > down" are quite strong statements. > > Any change can be vetoed at any time. There is no statute of > limitations, except for making a release. (http://s.apache.org/j4) > > Thus, "bad" code can sit around in version control for a very long time. > > The "forces it to be reverted" is in reference to making a release. > > Obviously, the community doesn't want to wait that long. Ripple > effects can make it hard to revert the change later. This is why you > start the discussion and come to consensus on how to proceed. > > In my experience, "proceed" usually means additional changes to > address the concerns raised. The only time "revert" has ever been the > solution is when somebody has added huge new chunks of code that the > community doesn't agree with [in terms of direction]. > > There is quite a bit of history in the httpd project discussing what > "veto" means, and how to handle them. I summarize all those years with > the simple phrase, "veto means a discussion is needed". > thanks for putting some sense into this discussion. I totally agree with your point of view.
and please remember accepting "backwards compatibility" as a technical argument is real killer which can be used to 99℅ of all commits. So starting a discussion makes sense whena committer has concern, but using a veto based on "backwards compatibility" to revert is pure anarchy. rgds jan i > Cheers, > -g
