Obviously the changes to Calc's POWER() function did not go well. IMHO, we need to better respect the rare but powerful veto option that committers have:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto When a committ is vetoed, it should be reverted quickly. Remember, a veto is likely to come only after sufficient discussion on the list for one or more committers to think a veto is justified. So if there was a just a simple misunderstanding then it would have already been taken care of. So when a veto comes we need to treat it seriously and revert the change. (Think of it this way: If we treat a veto merely as "Let's discuss this some more on the list but not take any actions right now" then we don't really have a veto option. ) If the original coder is willing and able to revert quickly, then great. But anyone, including the veto'er can do this. It is not rocket science and does not require special knowledge: svn merge -c -XXXXXX (where XXXXXX is the revision number of the revision that introduced the change you want to revert) svn ci That's it. It is very likely that the person whose changes were vetoed will not like the veto or the revert. That is quite natural. We all have egos. None of us like having our changes rejected. We all have our egos wrapped up in our code. That is why we cannot rely on the original coder being the one to revert. We don't want to turn this into a battle of wills between the person who made the change and the person(s) who vetoed it. Put egos aside. A veto is not the opportunity to escalate the argument. A veto is an opportunity to isolate the controversial code where both sides can calmly discuss it, knowing that there is no longer immediate concern in the main code. And reversion is SVN is a simple mechanical act. It does not require anyone special to do it. Any committer can do it. Then, if needed, continue the discussion, including alternative approaches and solutions to satisfying the concerns of outstanding vetos. If the vetos are withdrawn, then the patch can go back in. Again, this is a simple mechanical task. The point of a veto and a quick reversion is to return the code base quick to a state where it does not contain controversial changes in it. And remember, a veto does not mean you are wrong. It just means that another committer, like yourself, has expressed serious concerns about your change. You should respect that concern and be willing to remove the code until these concerns are addressed. -Rob
