-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Looking at the DB guidelines that the Derby project voted to follow it seems that generally code changes are subject to lazy approval. (see 'Product Changes' in http://db.apache.org/decisions.html)
Only changes that are 'Doubtful changes, new features, and large scale overhauls' and 'Any change that affects the semantics of an existing API function, the size of the program, configuration data formats, or other major areas' need to have a consensus approval vote before commit. So it seems a committer can commit any patch that they think is "low risk" without waiting for a vote. I would say, as examples, that Myrna's patch and my patch would fall into that category. I'm assuming that bug fix patches are always good to apply, assuming they fix the bug correctly. Myrna's - http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=378 Mine - http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=456 Obviously with some changes one committer may commit a patch they think is ok, but someone else thinks it should be voted on. This is covered by that person either raising the issue when the patch is first posted or voting a veto when the patch is committed. Then the lazy approval turns into a consenus vote. Any committer who does apply a patch is required to e-mail to the list and the originator of the patch, the fact that the patch was applied. Does this seem reasonable to folks? Just trying to make sure I understand our open source model. Dan. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBVJ+oIv0S4qsbfuQRAk1iAJ9jjpPiNb3QQpF4YB0Tkc2dw1ClagCgwJz8 NKzwJGMypOiaOK1v7JobeKE= =5nzn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
