> question with a question mark. Despite the fact that it is generally > understood that "committers own their own items", and that the RMT > exists as a final check on that.
This does not contradict my opinion, but anyway. > Clearly we disagree about this. I don't think that there is anything > to be gained from discussing this any further, though. I suggest that > we leave it at that. Agreed. > I don't want to upset anybody for any reason. I regret that my words > have upset you, but I think that they were misinterpreted in a way > that I couldn't possibly have predicted. The particular aspect of I strongly object to that. It's pretty obvious to me that addressing people in third person is very offending. > last > Friday's email that you took exception to was actually intended to > convey that it was not personal. Remember, my whole ethos is to avoid > strong RMT intervention when possible, to make it impersonal. My > framing of things had the opposite effect to the one I'd intended, > ironically. Let me stress again that the third person part is the bad thing in my opinion, not the rest of the words. > How could anybody on the RMT judge what was going on sensibly? There > was *zero* information from you (the original committer, our point of > contact) about an item that is in a totally unfamiliar part of the > code to every other committer. We were effectively forced to make > very > conservative assumptions about the deadline. I think that it's very > likely that this could have been avoided if only you'd engaged to > some > degree -- if you had said it was a short deadline then we'd likely > have taken your word for it, as the relevant subject matter expert > and > committer in charge of the item. But we were never given that choice. The same holds the other way round, I only understood later that you wanted more information. Had I known that earlier, I would have gladly given them. > > Well, you did lay out what the decision would be and I fully agreed > > with it. So again, what was there to do? Had you asked me if I > > agreed, > > I would told you. > > If the patch being reverted was so inconsequential to you that you > didn't even feel the need to write a brief email about it, why did > you > commit it in the first place? I just don't understand this at all. I'm getting very tired of you accusing me of things I neither said nor did. Please stop doing that or show me the email where I said the patch was "inconsequential"? As for writing a brief email, please read all the other emails in this thread, I've explained myself repeatedly already. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
