> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > A note on this subject:
> > Developers that are not involved in a specific part of the codebase
> > should abstain from vetoing components that other developers work on.
> That is the exact thing that got me ticked off.
The NNTP code was broken for a long time with no one working on it. Peter
fixed it and posted changes for comment. Obviously, he didn't ignore the
discussion, because you and he got into an argument over the changes. You
two couldn't agree, but that is not the same as if Peter were vetoing
changes that you were making to NNTP, without his having spent time working
on it. I doubt that he'd have done either, if someone had been actively
maintaining it. You could have vetoed his changes, and submitted your own
for acceptance.
As I understand it from the messages between you two, Peter said on multiple
occassions that future versions should have a "real" Authentication Service,
but he removed AuthService for v2.1 because it was seriously flawed, and his
change was the more expedient one for this release.
Honestly, I haven't looked at the code that was in question, and personally,
I'd have just moved NNTP out of the release (e.g., into proposal/) until
someone(s) agreed on how to fix it, and did so.
> This had been going on for some time
I've only been here since April or so, but you've got me with that one.
What has been going on for some time? I have not seen any substantial
change checked in that wasn't discussed first, or at least posted for
discussion. Changes are lazy consensus. If no one speaks up, they are
accepted. No one should be faulted for not hearing what's not said. Every
time an issue has come up, it has been discussed, so far as I'm aware.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
