incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: veto stuff (was: Code ownership)
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2002 02:46:20 GMT
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:51, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Ok, so if I'm the subject of a veto that I consider is invalid on that
> grounds that no rational justification was provided, what should one do
> to resolve the situation.  According to Jakarta law the rationale "my
> girfriend has a headache" is a rationale 

Nope. It has to be technical. If people can't be adults then it requires that 
all the other committers agree that the change is irrational or 

> Changes to
> Cornerstone were introcuced that broke James compatibility, but the war
> was on and James didn't really matter

False. The James people were led to believe that compatability was broken and 
were quite angry about it. However when it was explained to them what changes 
had occured they realized that no backwards compatability had been broken. 
There is one circumstance in which something could be broken and in that 
situation there is a simple fix but James devs but that wasn't a problem for 


Peter Donald
* "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, *
* and proving that there is no need to do so - almost *
* everyone gets busy on the proof."                   *
*              - John Kenneth Galbraith               *

View raw message