On 20/02/2013 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
[Pedro]
I also want an assurance that this will never *ever* happen again (I am
talking about the revert, I guess bikesheds are unavoidable). ...
what I will do ... is to propose changes to
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto that make it clear
that it is considered disrespectful or anti-social to revert someone
else's patches. This will allow better handling of similar problems in
future.
(Don't worry, I am not reopening the 0 ^ 0 discussion... just a follow-up)
After a thorough review on the members list as advised by Ross in
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@openoffice.apache.org/msg04423.html
and several tweaks the changes to the glossary page were published this
weekend. Note that the glossary uses a neutral wording in general, so
the patch respects the general tone of the glossary.
See http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto
The new text reads:
- invalid. Vetos only apply to code changes; they do not apply to
+ invalid; in case of doubt, deciding whether a technical
+ justification is valid is up to the PMC. Vetos force discussion
+ and, if supported, version control rollback or appropriate code
changes. Vetoed code commits
+ are best reverted by the original committer, unless an urgent
+ solution is needed (e.g., build breakers). Vetos only apply to
+ code changes; they do not apply to
procedural issues such as software releases.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
