Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
IMO, code talks, bullshit walks. And I've been on both sides
of the argument many times in many places.
Yeah right. So to summarize, we have 3 committers who are happy
campers (2 of them which don't contribute much, as far as I know), and
the rest of the committers are either do not care or are unhappy. Most
also want a change in the development process, and as long as there's
agreement on that and it respects the ASF principles, we should be
able to do that.
It's fairly obvious that vetoes which "pack a lot of punch" haven't
been taken very seriously. The first reaction is to start arguing that
"the veto is not valid", and requalify technical reasons given as "non
technical".
you mean like the veto for the 5.5 B2C converter fix, where you and the
person vetoing hadn't even looked at the patch before writing "technical
reasons"
you're kidding yourself at this point
Of course :) He said he would veto if NIO APIs usage was introduced in
Tomcat 5.5, and that seemed reasonable to me. If there is no NIO usage,
there will be no veto, so again what is it you do not understand ?
I see you also don't care about my reservations on the virtual CL hack.
Any comment/discussion/collaboration on that issue ?
The technical veto only thing does not make sense to me overall. If
"technical preference" is not allowed, then I can simply overwrite your
Comet API in your playground (trunk) with my interpretation of it, and
you cannot do anything about it. I think ASF project management is broken :|
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
