On Feb 14, 2013, at 9:35 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 3 days I'd say is fine. There is no > need to rush out and "fix" a broken trunk, > no matter what the rationale may be. > > In this case Pedro had already written that he *would not* revert the patch. I take that as permission for anyone else to do so, given that we had two vetoes. This doesn't mean there is a rush to revert. It just means that there is no reason to wait for Pedro to revert once he has already said he would not revert. -Rob > > > >> ________________________________ >> From: Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> >> To: "dev@openoffice.apache.org" <dev@openoffice.apache.org> >> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:32 PM >> Subject: Re: Proposal: How we should handle committer vetos and reverts in >> the future >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Messaggio originale ----- >>> Da: Dave Fisher >> ... >>>> >>>> I agree that there should be no delay from the moment a veto is >>> acknowledged to the moment the commit is reverted, and that discussions can >>> be >>> held after the revert. But, whenever possible, give the committer the >>> opportunity to revert the commit himself. >>> >>> As long as "no delay" allows for the person being some reasonable >>> number of hours away from the their technology including that daily activity >>> that some call sleep. >> >> Or work, we are all volunteers and can't necessarily spend time in the week >> to follow the list right? >> >> I would think "no delay" == within 24 hours. >> >> Pedro. >> >>
