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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1CU0kB0vXeXUX1L8byaT-Zf2xg+3N+GeNthi_i6bn1qw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <554A91BE.6060105@bluematt.me>
	<CANEZrP3wGWHdz+ut6pvke5TJJsc1rTFt8sn2KziX35oL5LAsyg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDpDvk2VsQ+mJ-BoeBKmvu9jBXNujZEFKuCStRNjFL6VOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2zAGCCBhNa4=9yw+A_Dn5o4SQXoPTE_qcJzZ1dFuF2tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDqd6iHRUDKZWWTudcC1QkYa+rCuHjz7pMC2K1Db8wpgfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1CU0kB0vXeXUX1L8byaT-Zf2xg+3N+GeNthi_i6bn1qw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 16:39:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMzsG-SwaYWHEj7=kGtLTDvyGLeJSbB7-8=03v200eZ5gHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec501604b05671c05157fb92e
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
Precedence: list

--bcaec501604b05671c05157fb92e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, 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 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

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
hu, May 7, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote=
:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"=
><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>Maybe you dislike that idea. It&#39;s so .=
... centralised. So let&#39;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.</div><div><br></=
div><div>You cannot have committers fighting over what goes in and what doe=
sn&#39;t. That&#39;s madness. There must be a single decision maker for any=
 given codebase.=C2=A0</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><=
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.</div><div><br></div><div>Please don&#39;t conflate commit access with =
permission to merge because it&#39;s just not the case. No-one can sidestep=
 the requirement to get consensus, not even the 5 maintainers.</div><div><b=
r></div></div></div></div>

--bcaec501604b05671c05157fb92e--