On Aug 1, 2005, at 12:41 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jul 31, 2005, at 8:29 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Jul 31, 2005, at 4:39 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I've reviewed the original discussion on this topic. I'm rather
appalled that dain appears to regard this discussion as resulting
in a technical -1 forcing removal of the current gbean name
code. I would regard this attitude as an attempt to divide the
geronimo community in an extremely unproductive direction, so I
certainly hope I have misunderstood his position.
That was an incredibly negative thing to write, and I take offense.
To clarify, it is my understanding that the Apache Software
Foundation will not allow us release software that has a standing
technical veto. There are several standing technical vetos on
this subject, and several of the +1s on this subject are +1 to put
a feature back into the software. I understand that people don't
like to use the -1 but a +1 to revert a change is a effectively a -1.
My apologies. Upon further thought, I realize I have often been
using -1 (and +1 to "put it back") to mean "I think there's a
better way to do this, lets talk about it some more" rather than
"I'm vetoing this". I assumed with no justification everyone else
was doing the same. But, you are completely correct, we (including
me) did -1 some features, and according to apache rules we have to
resolve the situation before we ship. I am going to have to be
more careful in the future about my unwarranted assumptions.
These are our rules too :) We are them, and they is us.
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
