On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Hagar Delest <hagar.del...@laposte.net> wrote: > Le 14/02/2013 23:34, Rob Weir a écrit : > >> In any case, I don't think anyone should care who reverts. Once a >> veto has been stated, the code needs to be reverted. Who does it is a >> matter of convenience. Please don't be offended if someone else does >> it. > > > The vetoes were very poorly documented. > > Nobody has commented about Pedro's remark about the context of Bourbaki's > work (this point being the most technical point of this whole topic). > I've not taken the care to look at it (my maths lessons are rather old now). > The question is: was the work presented applicable to real world or was it a > custom maths space with a custom set of laws that would not fit the reality > of a spreadsheet for real work? > > Even if the patch case is now closed, I'm rather disappointed by the way it > has been handled. I can't see how this kind of behavior could attract new > developers. > > Side question: we have see that the backward compatibility was the most > important point here. What about a future improvement that would break the > backward compatibility? Does it mean that it would be vetoed as well? >
I don't think anyone can respond to a vague hypothetical. But I would recommend that anyone who wants to make "a future improvement that would break the backward compatibility" propose it on the list first and have the discussion first. We might find out that it is not an either/or situation, but that it is possible to both preserve compatibility and improve. -Rob -Rob > Hagar
