Release and Commit Policies

[Dr Andrew John Hughes]

On 14:39 Thu 12 May     , Jiri Vanek wrote:
> Just short answer -- I need to left earlier, will return to this at  the 
> evening:
> On 05/12/2011 02:37 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > On 12:01 Thu 12 May     , Jiri Vanek wrote:
> ...snip ...
> >>
> >> This is very dangerous  - one single person can block patch then (maybe
> >> uninterested person?) . Even when it is reviewer himself, then there is
> >> no judge when two _opinions_ (just! opinions) are standing  against each
> >> other.
> >>
> >
> > My point here was inspired by current events i.e. don't go and commit a patch
> > which there is still ongoing discussion.
> >
> > The issue you raise is a difficult one that really rolls out on a
> > case-by-case basis.  I don't think the situation you described is what
> > any of us want, but also I don't think we want patches being committed
> > to which there is clear disagreement.
> >
> > I guess such cases have to be resolved by involving more than two people and
> > getting a majority consensus.  Does that sound suitable?
> >
> 
> It is exactly what I have in my mind. But there is no way, or .. is 
> shard... to "force" somebody to be this... "judge" or third person or 
> how to call her/him.
> 

I know, but policies can only guide and not account for every occurrence.

Were you ok with the change I posted?  You haven't replied about it here.

> Regards J.

-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://icedtea.classpath.org
PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D  0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37