----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: Rob Weir
...
>>>
>> thanks for putting some sense into this discussion. I totally agree with
>> your point of view.
>>
>> and please remember accepting "backwards compatibility" as a
>> technical argument is real killer which can be used to 99℅ of all
>> commits. So
>
> Then I guess we're all darn fortunate that no one has used a backwards
> compatibility argument to veto 99% of all commits.
>
IMO, breaking *functionality* may be a valid technical reason to revert
a commit (it really depends on a case by case basis). Breaking backwards
compatibility is a fact of real life that we can try hard to avoid but may just
be necessary. All software packages of reasonable size tend to have
a section for those changes nowadays.
If the value 0^0 is considered functionality is a completely different
issue.
>
>> starting a discussion makes sense whena committer has concern, but using a
>> veto based on "backwards compatibility" to revert is pure
> anarchy.
I am in strong agreement.
Committing small non-invasive changes for wider testing (CTR) is still a
good thing, and a veto is not a valid instrument to prohibit the community
from evaluating such changes.
Changes can be proposed by anyone but only a committer can make
proposals true. That why committers must be respected when they
spending their spare time in the project..
Pedro.
