Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.47 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=E+brKOmC3CIP/dcrz7Tz9WgWzEoD0eHUbRsiMRiyw2p25Z/suFDLwVUH8TWQhfqAvU
         zuq+6AlWevqlXcnFndln4NkC0Iuy7NomGebKs4X38SjIsX3uMG9Yvs8ElLOZ2wUHwJeO
         28Izxu2wrmR42tXJMisFFPjCpKvt3XQZtFVFI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=1raexKb+RbPU1d=JzNO-eBy1=+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DF7D090.5090000@lippka.com>
	<4DF7DD84.3060400@googlemail.com>
	<4DF7E46D.6030303@gmx.ch>
	<4DF8E917.2060302@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=YFBnQusTCXJrh0zpcpiYG2aqAAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DF8FF06.1030805@gmail.com>
	<4DF903E0.1050908@apache.org>
	<4DF906B3.9010302@apache.org>
	<BANLkTi=1raexKb+RbPU1d=JzNO-eBy1=+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:06:28 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikBx+RsdLEukX-T14LU50YSzqjL3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: decision making (wsa Re: [discuss] remove of binfilter module)
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 15:39, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>...
> In the rare event that somebody wishes to take exception to a change
> like this, we deal with that on an exception basis; sometimes this is
> simply a matter of somebody else fixing the fix. =A0In extreme cases we
> may decide to first revert the controversial change and then talk
> through the issue on the relevant list.

Short note: ALWAYS let the original person perform the revert. They
should recognize lack of consensus, understand there isn't a way
forward at the time, and perform the revert. (of course, the "wrong"
stuff could be left in, the community decides a fix, and you move
onwards without a (temporary) revert)

The only reason to perform a revert for somebody else's work is if
there is build breakage that prevents everybody from working (and note
that I said *build* rather than *test*). Or maybe if the person just
drops off communications for an extended period of time.

Taking a unilateral action (revert) against somebody else's commit is
one of the highest forms of antisocial behavior. I've run into this a
couple times[1] and so it really wanted to stress this particular
point.

And yes, I know Sam wasn't referring to this kind of behavior. He said
"we may decide". I just wanted to clarify who would *perform* the
revert after that decision.

Cheers,
-g

[1] the latest was actually a commit/revert war that went two cycles
before it escalated. very uncool.