On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected]> wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [Andrea] I agree that there should be no delay from the moment a veto >>>>> is >>>>>> >>>>>> acknowledged to the moment the commit is reverted ... >>>>>> [Dave Fisher] As long as "no delay" allows for the person being some >>>>>> reasonable >>>>>> >>>>>> number of hours away from the their technology including that daily >>>>>> activity >>>>>> that some call sleep. > > > Obviously, Dave. I wrote "acknowledged" to mean that when the committer has > had reasonable time to see and evaluate the veto he should promptly revert. > > >> In this case Pedro had already written that he *would not* revert the >> patch. > > > Any developer (with a couple of exceptions maybe...) can change his mind > after a 120-and-counting message thread about an issue. I'd appreciate that,
This is true. That is why I asked Pedro a 2nd time, after his change received two vetos, whether he would revert it. He responded with personal attacks against me. So not only did he state that he would not revert, when given the opportunity to change his mind, he did not. -Rob > instead of trying to find details to justify an action that has already been > done, we thanked Pedro for tolerating the "forced revert" in this case and > we simply agreed that in future we will consider it best (again, not for the > code but for the community) if a patch is reverted by the original committer > whenever possible. As simple as that. No need to flood this list with some > other dozen messages. > > Regards, > Andrea.
