Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Dave Korn wrote:
>
>>> PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS.
>> However I don't think it's going to happen,
>
> Yes, it's probably not going to happen; neither the requested revert.
> But now I at least know a strategy how to sneak in controversial patches.
No, that is a false inference. Nothing about the way we've decided to
handle this situation sets a precedent that we would be obliged to follow in
any future instance and I think there's a fairly strong consensus that this
patch wasn't suitable for the free-for-all rule owing to its scale.
>> given that it's been a couple of days now and a whole load of commits
>> have gone in on top. If I for one second thought that it had been going
>> to happen, I would have objected. Very loudly.
>
> I also complained loudly, I think. Nobody is interested.
Everyone agrees that it was a bad idea for this patch to go in the way it
did, the only point on which there is any difference of opinion is what we
should do about it, and there, yes; you and Paolo are pretty much the only
people who feel that it should have been backed out, where I and others feel
that it's not worth the second helping of pain that doing so would cause and
that we should proceed not by doing anything in this particular case but by
trying to make sure it doesn't happen again in the future.
cheers,
DaveK
