> > Da: Kay Schenk ... > >On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> > OTOH I haven't seen anyone issue a technical >> > veto on this change, which is really what's >> > required before Pedro actually needs to revert >> > anything. >> > >> >> I was waiting to see if there were any persuasive arguments in favor >> of breaking backwards compatibility before deciding whether to do >> that. I think things are getting a little clearer now with Norbert's >> contribution to the discussion. But if (as it seems now) that >> "mathematical correctness" does not justify the change, then my >> position would be that we don't break backwards compatibility. >> >> Also, a veto would be a blunt instrument and I'd rather avoid it if >> further discussion leads to a consensus. >> >> -Rob >> > >Given this discussion and research I've done on my own, I will veto this >change and would like to see it reverted. Sorry, Pedro! and thanks you >Norbert and others for this worthy discussion. >
Well, it admittedly comes as a surprise to me that there is such a huge resistance to change without some real argumentation. I will ask everyone to take a break for two weeks before starting the voting procedure for this. Independently of the vote result I will be effectively stopping the development work I intended to do on Calc as I have lost all interest on improving it given the current situation. Pedro.
