On 20 Jan 2023, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Evgeny Kotkov via dev wrote on Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:52 +00:00:
I can complete the work on this branch and bring it to a
production-ready
state, assuming there are no objections.
Your assumption is counterfactual:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/202301.mbox/%3C20230119152001.GA27446%40tarpaulin.shahaf.local2%3E
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/202212.mbox/%3CCAMHy98NqYBLZaTL5-FAbf24RR6bagPN1npC5gsZenewZb0-EuQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Objections have been raised, been left unanswered, and now
implementation work has commenced following the original design.
That's
not acceptable.
I'm a little surprised by your reaction.
It is never "not acceptable" for someone to do implementation work
on a branch while a discussion is happening, even if that
discussion contains objections to or questions about the premise
of the branch work.
It's a branch. He didn't merge it to trunk, and he posted it as
an explicit invitation for discussion.
I'm vetoing the change until a non-rubber-stamp design
discussion has been completed on the public dev@ list.
Starting an implementation on a branch is a valuable contribution
to a design discussion -- it's exactly the kind of
"non-rubber-stamp" contribution one would want.
If you want to re-iterate points you've made that have been left
unanswered, that would be a useful contribution -- perhaps some of
those points will be updated now that there's actual code, or
perhaps they won't. Either way, what Evgeny is doing here seems
very constructive to me, and entirely within the normal range of
how we do things.
Best regards,
-Karl
