On 10.08.2014 22:26, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On 10 August 2014 20:47, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 10.08.2014 13:00, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Author: ivan >> Date: Sun Aug 10 11:00:39 2014 >> New Revision: 1617088 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1617088 >> Log: >> On svn-auth-x509 branch: Revert r1616093 (svn_checksum_to_cstring_display2 >> implementation) -- it's out of the scope of svn-auth-x509 branch and I >> develop local x509 implementation for formatting cert fingerprints. >> >> >> -1 >> >> You started mucking with the branch, despite the fact that Ben has good and >> valid reasons against your proposed change, and the discussion (and vote!) >> on dev@ does not have a resolution yet. >> > Could you please add technical reason for your veto. Just referencing > Ben doesn't count. Ben could raise veto himself if he wanted, but > current state of our discussion is different view to name and purpose > of svn_x509_fingerprint_display() function.
This was not a veto. It was a request, and I said plainly why I made it. >> Please revert r1617088, r1617095 and r1617096. >> > I'm ready to do this, but I find it counter-productive because I'll > have to raise convert my vote to -1 on svn-auth-x509 branch merge in > situation when we actually doesn't have serious disagreement with Ben. > > Ben, could you please let me know if you don't like directions of my > commits and want to have them reverted: I'll revert it immediately of > course. Ben already said why he didn't want to have a special display function private to the x509 parser. Once again, your only counter-argument is "code churn" and, once again, you're ignoring other people's arguments because you don't like them. Please stop doing that. It's not productive. -- Brane -- Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion WANdisco | Realising the impossibilities of Big Data e. [email protected]
