Christos Zoulas wrote: > > > > On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Alexander Nasonov <al...@yandex.ru> wrote: > > > > If my reading of the current commit guideline is correct, a case > > of renaming already released application doesn't fall into the > > "obvious" fix because some people can possibly object to breaking > > backward compatibility. > > You are correct, and this is why I discussed it with core before doing it. In > fact > the name "block" instead of "deny" was suggested by a core member: I chose > "block" over "deny" because of similarity to the previous name, > and because some of the API's start with "bl_" and would not need to be > modified. If "deny" was chosen instead, these would probably need to be > changed to "dl_" and that prefix is associated with the dynamic linker.
Clause 4 (and probably others) needs a serious overhaul to make sure that all cases that needs a review reach everyone who has a voice (and who can potentially object) before involving the Core, if necessary. The current wording isn't inclusive, period. -- Alex
