William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 05:28 PM 8/6/2005, Joe Orton wrote: > >>On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 09:29:13PM -0000, William Rowe wrote: >> >>>Author: wrowe >>>Date: Sat Aug 6 14:29:05 2005 >>>New Revision: 230592 >>> >>>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=230592&view=rev >>>Log: >>> >>> As much as it pains me, seriously, it seems that reviewing the re-backport >>> of this code was too illegible for review, so it seems we will need to >>> re-review a fresh backport from httpd trunk. >> >>That patch went through the normal 2.0.x review process and received >>three +1s and no vetoes. You absolutely cannot come along a few months >>later and say "oh, actually, -1" and rip stuff out that you now decide >>you don't like. > > > It received 3 +1 votes, a slim review. It was never released, > so it's not in fact 'done'. If unreleased changes are incorrect, > they need to be fixed, or needs to be reverted. >
Sorry for being confused, but I just want to understand the commit policy/process on 2.0.x better. As far as I understood this right now it works basicly this way: 1. A change to 2.0.x is proposed. 2. It gets 3 binding +1 and no binding -1. 3. The change is commited in subversion. If some person (with or without binding vote) thinks that the change is -1 in its opinion after 3. has been executed the process starts from the scratch and reverting this change follows the same process as any change to 2.0.x and you have to go thru 1. - 3. to get this reverting done on the 2.0.x branch. Please advice me if I mixed something up. I just want to understand these things. Regards Rüdiger [..cut..]
