On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote:
> Mike, > > > At a minimum, the community needs to establish that this feature and its > > side-effects are understood by more than just the one smart guy that > wrote > > it and the other smart guy who isn't a fan. Then, those who understand > the > > feature and its side-effects need to publicly weigh in on both the value > > and the timing (1.9, FSFS rather than FSX, etc.) of the change. > > > How do you manage this discussion in the simplest way possible? Call for > > a formal vote on removing the feature, asking that the extreme +1/-1 > votes > > be presented only by folks who both understand the feature and have > reviewed > > the code. (Seems only fair to allow the status quo to remain the default > > action.) Give the vote at least 72 weekday hours to allow time for code > > review, and then put this topic behind you/us and move on. > > Since no one objected to this approach, I assume that there is a lazy > consensus and I'm going to start a formal vote regarding the > log-addressing feature early next week. > > I think it would be fair to call a 'Consensus Approval' vote [1,2] for > leaving > the log-addressing feature in the trunk. In other words, it will be > required > at least three binding '+1' votes (and no vetos) to leave the code in > trunk. > > It will be also assumed that: > a) +1 votes could be presented only by folks who both understand > the log-addressing feature and have reviewed the code. > b) a concrete technical justification showing why the change is bad > (allows data to be corrupted, negatively affects performance, etc. ) > should be provided for a '-1' vote. > > Effectively, this vote will be similar to our 3-vote policy for branches > but made a little later. > > What do you think about this plan for vote? > Hi Ivan, Not being Mike, here is my opinion anyway: I'm +1 on your proposal. In fact, I had planned to call for exactly that vote at some point mid-Oct (so I could complete work on the other bits e.g. svnfsfs before that). Due to the size of the features (plural), I think we should extend the voting period to at least 2 weeks. This will give people who are new to the code a chance to actually review it. I don't think there is any point in rushing a decision at this stage of 1.9 "slippage". -- Stefan^2.
