Hi Maxim, On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 at 22:26, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry that you feel that way. I don't think consensus was willfully > broken, and perhaps by studying some actual examples of these > occurrences we can better understand what went wrong and how the new > suggested policy would have helped or could be modified to help avoid > such problems in the future. Well, all is in the public archive. :-) For one recent example, see #61255 [1]: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- We should think about how to improve our processes to avoid such issues in the future. I did raise concerns about this very patch late at night during FOSDEM, 24h after submission, and reaffirmed my viewpoint days later. I understand that delaying a nice patch series like this one is unpleasant, but I think those concerns should have been taken into account. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- 1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/61255#32 >From my point of view, it is useless to rehash specific example by specific example. Because it is not one unique case but several diffuse situations popping here or there. To be honest, I am missing what are the objections when one is asking to double-check some core changes. Anyway, I have expressed my opinion in various places in this thread and now I will not comment further. Cheers, simon
