On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:04:12AM +0200, Vincent JARDIN wrote: > Paul, > > >> That's fine. > >> > >> Then I NACK and it doesn't go in. > > > If that happens, then you cause a retroactive fork. > > It is all about moving forward without creating show stoppers since > forks must be avoided. > > Two logics: > - many ack't of the patch vs your NACK, > - and it does not break any next steps.
Indeed I think we have a community consensus here, which I'm quite certain supersedes an individual NAK. I have therefore gone ahead and merged the patches. [minus the last 3] In the long run, it seems this NAK model has outlived its usefulness. We're thankfully getting to a point where we have enough of an active developer community supporting Quagga, so the many eyes can fill this role of watching out for changes that go worse instead of better. -David _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
