Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Why do you want to revert a fix for a real problem? I fixed it the way > we always did in the past. If it is more important for you to be > bureaucratically correct than fixing issues, be it. I am too old for this.
My motivation for insisting that the +1 rule is followed is twofold: - QA: Having mandatory code reviews in preparation of a release is a widely used best practice which helps to get a reliable product. - Avoiding frustration: Allowing to violate the rules in some cases and not in others easily upsets those people who invest time into reviews and in implementing and testing the changes resulting from the reviews. The particular case we are discussing is a good example for both items: convert_ACM_siggraph() in lyx2lyx does currently delete document contents without telling the user (our standard way would be to convert unsupported styles into ERT, possibly commented), and frustration has already been voiced on the list (not by me, I am not frustrated). > I volunteered to improve the situation beginning with the necessary fix > for AGUTeX but well, you are obviously not interested to get this in > soon but to do it "the right way" despite that there is no decision what > the right way should be in detail. Of course I have a personal opinion about the "right way", but this is not important. I won't complain if you get a +1 by a developer for an AGUTeX update that is not done in the way I believe is the "right way". The most important point IMO is that the +1 rule is followed, which means to resolve the siggraph situation first, and then to do the AGUTeX update. You are right that I think that following the procedure here is more important than having a quick solution. Georg
