On 03/11/19 21:37, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 15:26 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: >> >> You being a qa member doesn't have a lot to do with this mgorny. you >> know there was no official policy when I posted this, and as far as I >> know there is not one now. >> > That is a really poor argument. Something that's respected for 10+ > years and reported as QA violation is a standing policy as far as I'm > concerned. Just because it isn't backed by a formally stamped policy > (at least as far as we know -- maybe it was actually stamped somewhere > in the past?) doesn't mean you it's fine for one person to change it ad- > hoc because it stands in his way. > > I should point that I'm very concerned that you're pushing this forward > even though: > > 1) I've objected to the change itself, > > 2) I've pointed out that it's been sent to the wrong mailing list, > and that this explicitly prevents a number of developers from even > knowing that this is happening, > > 3) removing it provides a way for regressions that can have major impact > on users and that involve much effort in reverting that. > > So if I send a revert patch afterwards, and you object, should the patch > be accepted because only one person objected? > Children, please take this off-list ...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
