| 1 |
On 03/11/19 21:37, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2019-11-03 at 15:26 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> You being a qa member doesn't have a lot to do with this mgorny. you |
| 5 |
>> know there was no official policy when I posted this, and as far as I |
| 6 |
>> know there is not one now. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> That is a really poor argument. Something that's respected for 10+ |
| 9 |
> years and reported as QA violation is a standing policy as far as I'm |
| 10 |
> concerned. Just because it isn't backed by a formally stamped policy |
| 11 |
> (at least as far as we know -- maybe it was actually stamped somewhere |
| 12 |
> in the past?) doesn't mean you it's fine for one person to change it ad- |
| 13 |
> hoc because it stands in his way. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I should point that I'm very concerned that you're pushing this forward |
| 16 |
> even though: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> 1) I've objected to the change itself, |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> 2) I've pointed out that it's been sent to the wrong mailing list, |
| 21 |
> and that this explicitly prevents a number of developers from even |
| 22 |
> knowing that this is happening, |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> 3) removing it provides a way for regressions that can have major impact |
| 25 |
> on users and that involve much effort in reverting that. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> So if I send a revert patch afterwards, and you object, should the patch |
| 28 |
> be accepted because only one person objected? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
Children, please take this off-list ... |
Archives