A -1 on a code modification proposal (in this case the code was already changed, but i think it still applies) is called a veto by the ASF. If accompanied by a valid technical justification, it stands (unless the person can be talked out of it).
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html On Wednesday, March 13, 2013, Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All: > > It seems to me that we are misusing the term veto. A release cannot be > vetoes, it can be VOTEd on with a -1, which is not a veto, but is usually > interpreted as one, by me, at least, as a courtesy to my fellow PMD member > for putting the time in to care. > > You can -1 a commit which is not really a veto either because the change as > already happened and requires someone to do the reverting. > > So maybe we should not get all hung up on vetoes. > > My beef around here is how $%@^ hard to is make publish a release :( > > Gary > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM, James Carman > <jcar...@carmanconsulting.com <javascript:;>>wrote: > > > > > On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:36 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > > > In which case, vetoing the commit that causes the problem makes more > > > sense, surely? > > > > > > > Perhaps we should set up a Sonar rule to catch stuff like this to save > you > > the trouble of trolling the SVN commit log messages. > > > > The veto was unnecessary. It's a wonder we keep any committers around > > here. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org<javascript:;> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org<javascript:;> > > > > > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com <javascript:;> | > ggreg...@apache.org<javascript:;> > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
