From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqNu2-0001SX-UX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 15:39:58 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.54; envelope-from=btcdrak@gmail.com; helo=mail-vn0-f54.google.com; Received: from mail-vn0-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqNu2-0001fx-5H for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 15:39:58 +0000 Received: by vnbg62 with SMTP id g62so3377092vnb.6 for ; Thu, 07 May 2015 08:39:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.75.99 with SMTP id b3mr3413540vdw.2.1431013192720; Thu, 07 May 2015 08:39:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.63.5 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 08:39:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me> From: Btc Drak Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 16:39:32 +0100 Message-ID: To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec501604b05671c05157fb92e X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HK_RANDOM_FROM From username looks random -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.6 HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM Envelope sender username looks random 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (btcdrak[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YqNu2-0001fx-5H Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 15:39:59 -0000 --bcaec501604b05671c05157fb92e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > > Maybe you dislike that idea. It's so .... centralised. So let's say Gavin > commits his patch, because his authority is equal to all other committers. > Someone else rolls it back. Gavin sets up a cron job to keep committing the > patch. Game over. > > You cannot have committers fighting over what goes in and what doesn't. > That's madness. There must be a single decision maker for any given > codebase. > You are conflating consensus with commit access. People with commit access are maintainers who are *able to merge* pull requests. However, the rules for bitcoin development are that only patches with consensus get merged. If any of the maintainers just pushed a change without going through the whole code review and consensus process there would be uproar, plain and simple. Please don't conflate commit access with permission to merge because it's just not the case. No-one can sidestep the requirement to get consensus, not even the 5 maintainers. --bcaec501604b05671c05157fb92e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= hu, May 7, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote= :
Maybe you dislike that idea. It's so .= ... centralised. So let's say Gavin commits his patch, because his auth= ority is equal to all other committers. Someone else rolls it back. Gavin s= ets up a cron job to keep committing the patch. Game over.

You cannot have committers fighting over what goes in and what doe= sn't. That's madness. There must be a single decision maker for any= given codebase.=C2=A0

<= div>You are conflating consensus with commit access. People with commit acc= ess are maintainers who are *able to merge* pull requests. However, the rul= es for bitcoin development are that only patches with consensus get merged.= If any of the maintainers just pushed a change without going through the w= hole code review and consensus process there would be uproar, plain and sim= ple.

Please don't conflate commit access with = permission to merge because it's just not the case. No-one can sidestep= the requirement to get consensus, not even the 5 maintainers.
--bcaec501604b05671c05157fb92e--