>>> On 8/6/2007 at 12:28 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/6/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ummm... These didn't have 3 +1 votes. >> >> So why were they applied and committed?? > > I think for platform-specific code we've been okay with a smaller > consensus than 3. > > If our only two NetWare guys agree on the change, then I doubt the > rest of us have anything to add to the conversation. And until > recently, we only had one NetWare-savvy committer; so we're making > progress towards getting 3. =P -- justin
Not to stir the pot or anything, just to add some context, until recently when we gave faunkg commit rights on the httpd and apr projects, I was the only NetWare maintainer. As such, you never really saw any NetWare backports hit the status file because I just commited them. Yes, the patches flowed through trunk first, but nobody really noticed because nobody really cared, other than me. If I had proposed the backports, I would have never achieved 3 +1's on anything. Now that we have another NetWare person, I feel that NetWare backports should be seen in the status file and voted on within a reasonable time period (lazy concensus, so to speak). This is what I instructed faunkg to do with the NetWare patches that he wanted to backport to 2.2. But even in this situation there are now only two of us, so at best a NetWare backport will only get 2 +1's and with my time for doing reviews or anything else related to Apache, becoming more limited, even that is stretching it. I think that there are sometimes when lazy consensus needs to override strict RTC. NetWare is one of them. So for now like Justin said, at least 2 +1's is better than nothing. :) Just my thinking, Brad
