On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > ----- Messaggio originale ----- >> Da: Rob Weir > ... >>>> >>> thanks for putting some sense into this discussion. I totally agree with >>> your point of view. >>> >>> and please remember accepting "backwards compatibility" as a >>> technical argument is real killer which can be used to 99℅ of all >>> commits. So >> >> Then I guess we're all darn fortunate that no one has used a backwards >> compatibility argument to veto 99% of all commits. >> > > IMO, breaking *functionality* may be a valid technical reason to revert
Functionality is one reason certainly. But the technical attributes of code include things other than mere functionality, like performance, maintainability, testability, and compatibility, including compatibility with standards, with 3rd party applications, and yes, with documents created with prior versions of the software. Don't try to dumb down what a technical reason is. If it makes it easier to reason about this, think of backwards compatibility as the functionality required to process documents written from prior versions of OpenOffice, and to give the same results. -Rob > a commit (it really depends on a case by case basis). Breaking backwards > compatibility is a fact of real life that we can try hard to avoid but may > just > be necessary. All software packages of reasonable size tend to have > a section for those changes nowadays. > > If the value 0^0 is considered functionality is a completely different > issue. > >> >>> starting a discussion makes sense whena committer has concern, but using a >>> veto based on "backwards compatibility" to revert is pure >> anarchy. > > I am in strong agreement. > > Committing small non-invasive changes for wider testing (CTR) is still a > good thing, and a veto is not a valid instrument to prohibit the community > from evaluating such changes. > > Changes can be proposed by anyone but only a committer can make > proposals true. That why committers must be respected when they > spending their spare time in the project.. > > Pedro.
