On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:06 PM Alexandre Oliva <ol...@gnu.org> wrote: > > On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zane...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > It was clear to me and others glibc maintainers that it was *you* who > > bypass the consensus to *not* reinstate the “joke”. > > I think you wrote it backwards: what I did was to revert the commit that > the person who put it in agreed shouldn't have been made at that point, > so that the debate about whether or not to install the patch could be > carried out without the fait accompli. To my surprise, it stopped. > > Then, a year or so later, when most of the GNU policies that incided on > that matter had already been discussed and approved, and they suggested > (at least to me) that the conclusion was likely that the patch was in > line with them, some other situation came up that reminded people of the > patch, it was discussed under the heat of the unrelated situation (which > I also found inappropriate), but it got applied AFAICT in accordance > with GNU and GLIBC policies.
RMS briefly stated that he did not want the change to be applied, we considered his input back then but we decided to remove the joke *regardless* of what he thought about the subject. And you used this to state the change had no consensus to reinstate it in a way that we haven't done in the project for a couple of years and which caused a lot of disarray. The problem was not that you did it, but how you did it. You then spent a lot of days trying to convince other glibc maintainers about your actions to the point that Torvald and Siddhesh were fed up with your rhetoric. > > > maintainers said explicitly you shouldn’t do it. > > I do not see nor recall any such responses or reactions to my offer to > revert the patch in case the installer wouldn't do it, except the > installer saying they wouldn't do the reversal. Eventually I did it. > After the fact, some said I shouldn't have done it. > > > That's my recollection of the events. All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that, but you ignored it anyway. And we did not want to start a potential contention of patch applying and reversion from that petty discussion. But this is done and I don't want to dig into this. My point is *we* glibc maintainers were fully aware that it was *you* that decided to act in that way and it was not my feelings that it was *hate* the dominant response, but rather a lot of frustration and disappointment from how you acted.
