Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix [and 1 more messages]
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix"):
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Kurt Roeckx <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I'm also not very happy with the wording of supermajority. It's
> > not really defined what it means, but is used. For instance
> > 220.127.116.11 talks about a "3:1 majority" and not about a
> > supermajority. I will probably translate this to if N > 1
> > for use in devotee.
> The original patch for this issue changed those to refer to a
> supermajority requirement:
So it did.
> Using the term "supermajority" consistently to refer to 3:1 etc but
> not 1:1 seems like the clearer approach to me.
Yes. I will fix this, although I don't think I want to supply the
whole thing as a diff.