Sounds like lazy consensus under RTC to me :) Aaron Bannert wrote: > > Sounds good to me. I'd prefer adding "about four days". > > I'm also assuming that you are only talking about big commits > (anything other than a few lines). I wouldn't want things like > typos to have to wait that long. This is grey area though, > and it comes down to personal judgement...so I agree with > these guidelines. > > -aaron > > > On Monday, December 2, 2002, at 05:44 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > Since the relatively few people who voted left us at an impasse on > > this, it seems appropriate to try to find a compromise. (I've been > > told before that something other than normal RTC-with-3-+1 vs. CTR > > isn't the Apache way or something to that effect, but I don't see that > > such concerns should stand in the way of each side giving up some > > ground.) > > > > How about using this for the stable tree? > > > > To merge something from dev to stable (or fix it in stable if the fix > > is specific to stable): > > > > either > > > > three committers (including submitter) state their approval > > > > or > > > > four days elapses with no objections >
-- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
