Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Sep 10, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > >> Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> How about: >>> >>> o CTR on trunk >>> >>> o Various release branches are made (ala httpd, apr, etc...). >>> These include a STATUS file. >>> >>> o All code applied to the release branch is under >>> lazy consensus but *must* be specified in STATUS. >>> (eg: "I plan on applying rev786987 in 3 days under >>> lazy consensus"). >>> >>> Not as stringent as RTC, but also provides a good level >>> of oversight with a minimum of overhead... RTC can be >>> maintained for older, stable releases. >> >> Still -1. >> >> It provides no more oversight than RTC
Sorry my bad - I meant CTR here. My point is that your less stringent proposal provides additional overhead over CTR but no extra oversight / benefit. > I have no idea how you could possibly justify that statement. > With RTC one *requires* 3 +1 votes. The above does not. > > And STATUS is there to indicate what *will* be done, not > what *has* been done. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
