Release and Commit Policies

[Andrew Haley]

On 12/05/11 18:05, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 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.

That's right.  I think we need more emphasis on reaching a consensus:
if the situation gets really bad then we're beyond the point where
policies really help.  The big risk here is revert wars, which are to
be avoided like the plague.

Andrew.