I would +1 everything you said... if Julian had changed svn_boolean_t. He changed svn_tristate_t, which is used exactly once in trunk, so I don't see the need to be as careful with it.
The caveat? This assumes that --- as we ought to --- we not act on feedback differently because it comes after the change has been committed. Feedback that would have caused a "No, let's not commit this yet" reaction if provided early should cause a "OK, let's revert this for now then" reaction if provided later. Daniel Greg Stein wrote on Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 00:47:27 -0500: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 08:45, Hyrum K. Wright > <hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> > > wrote: > >... > >> Having said all that, +1 on removing the gratuitous inconsistency by > >> applying this patch. > >> > >> Committed r1030909. > > > > Gah. Can we please wait a little bit longer on this kind of stuff to > > allow people in other timezones a chance to weigh in? > > I have raised this before, Julian. For making changes with some > impact, where feedback from the community is desired, then the > standard Apache rule is 72 hours. And even if we don't worry about > rules, it is simply *respectful* to give others a chance to speak up. > > Last time, you bumped the format with something like FOUR hours > notice. That was really bad. I'm not sure about the extent of the > badness here (tho changing something as central as svn_types.h seems > pretty obvious as an "input-required" change), but given that another > member of the community has said "woah. too quick", then you REALLY > need to slow down. > > This isn't an attempt to slow down your work. This is an attempt > (bordering on requirement) for you to work with the rest of the > community on changes to our codebase. > > -g
