On 26 September 2014 20:34, Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrm...@wandisco.com> wrote: > 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,
It seems that you started to change fsfs code actively, so I postpone creation of the formal vote until the code and data format (!) will be "stabilized" again. Please let me know when you finish. -- Ivan Zhakov
