Remy Maucherat wrote: > > Since the community is a bit small, it could be useful to precise that a > single +1 (from the committer who proposes the commit) is enough for a > commit to go through, rather than the usual 3 +1s.
That would be C-T-R, aye? E.g. you are -1 to adopting R-T-C on any branches if we understand you correctly. Just be aware that R-T-C on released branches is not entirely popular on httpd. It certainly is an obstacle to momentum. Nobody argues that it isn't a painful discipline. It was adopted to try to move focus to the development trunk, because without that change, Apache 1.3 would have grown forever sapping the energy of developers to actually improve upon 2.0. And to try to find a more stable, happy medium in a code base that had as many regressions as it had fixes with new releases. Jeff Trawick proposed a maintenance branch of 2.0.42 that would have been maintained for some time into perpetuity. (E.g. 2.0.42.2, .3 etc). R-T-C was adopted to try to find that middle ground between folks who wanted to package a trustworthy httpd v.s. folks who wanted to continue to innovate. /trunk/ was selected for innovation (and a sandbox when the changes would make trunk unstable for a significant period of time.) Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
