C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 22:52:03 -0400: > On 08/04/2011 09:47 PM, Blair Zajac wrote: > > On the veto issue, it's odd that Greg is veto a revert of a commit change > > that originally occurred on trunk and is now sitting on the branch. It > > does seem odd one can veto the move back to the original default > > implementation. > > > > Just wondering, couldn't we veto the commit that made serf the default? > > Eh... sounds like politickin'... let's not go there, please. > > The Subversion committers have consistently demonstrated a keen ability (and > desire) to work out our differences quickly and without even resorting to > something as formal as a vote. I mean, I can count on one hand the number > of such votes ... maybe on one finger, even! I'm not even quite sure that a > call for vote in this situation was really necessary, as we already have a > mechanism in place for addressing the technical question before us (the > 1.7.x/STATUS voting system). To the degree that we can avoid resorting to > mere rule-by-the-majority and continue working toward peaceful consensus, > the greater Subversion community benefits.
Agreed!
