Remy Maucherat wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> jean-frederic clere wrote: >>> Now for me that just makes another chapter in the "STATUS" file: >>> "PATCHES being discussed". After a week those patches should be accepted >>> or reverted. Reverted patches and corresponding discussions should stay >>> in the "STATUS" until a solution is found. I would keep a passing margin >>> of +3. >> >> A higher bar to add a feature than to release the software? Plainly >> absurd. > > Features additions are not mentioned in my proposal. We also use a +3 > vote for releases.
Maybe we are misusing words. A passing margin of +3 means three more +1's than -1's; that means if you had 2 -1's you would seek 5 +1's to keep going over the objection. That's what I referred to as absurd. If you are talking about at least 3 +1's, more + than -, then that's being realistic. JFC - did you really mean a margin? Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
