Rodney Waldhoff wrote: > > Before that, commit-then-review seems like the precedent. commit-then-review is OK by me. After the commit, if it isn't clear that there isn't consensus (not majority, consensus), then it should be backed out until consensus is reached. > Right. For *released* versions of components. Stuff that's in > development is, well, in development. Doesn't sound like a workable model for commons to me. Sandbox? Definitely. Separate subproject? Perhaps. Commons? I think not. > It seems strange to me that Dirk and I were the main participants in the > specific interaction that spawned this thread, and yet we're the least > worked up about it. Hmmm. I presume that you are referring to the same Dirk that wrote: > If this is the case I can only say that I'll then must fork the > HttpClient code, I need a stable/working version... period. Sounds pretty serious to me. - Sam Ruby P.S. this is the reason that I wrote Gump. I'm not singling anybody out, I am trying to raise overall awareness.
