Remy Maucherat wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm +1 for this type of procedure, but I don't see how
this can be shoehorned into the current setup and layout
of TC.
The basic ideas behind httpd and apr are:
o There is a set development location (currently trunk)
which operates under CTR.
o There is a set release branch location which only
operates on RTC. All code patches must first be
applied on the development location and then be
proposed for backport and obtain 3 (or more) +1
votes.
The premise is that there is a codebase which is CTR
and thus very free and easy, but it is never directly in
a "to be released" path. All code that is destined for
actual release must be applied to the stable/release
branch via a RTC method.
Yes, that is pretty much the plan. Also, by forcing some level of
agreement before a commit, this removes the potential for clashes and
flames due to unannounced changes :)
yes, it is also easily abused by folks who throw around vetoes as often
as I change underwear. I don't see a need to slow down development even
further, at this point if the previous vote is considered valid, we
don't even have a development branch, and a few months of work got
thrown out the window
Filip
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
