From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26047 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2010 20:40:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 26036 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Sep 2010 20:40:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:40:32 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L9600H001ED0400@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:40:30 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.203.3]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L9600GFP1FHENB0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:40:30 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:42:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: RFA: fix PR python/11792 In-reply-to: To: Tom Tromey Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83sk11v7en.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83pqwzkeyi.fsf@gnu.org> <83zkw0j15r.fsf@gnu.org> <83y6bkhy8d.fsf@gnu.org> <83fwx2w37j.fsf@gnu.org> <83y6atve9j.fsf@gnu.org> <20100922182504.GA3007@adacore.com> <83wrqdvcup.fsf@gnu.org> <83vd5xvaep.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-09/txt/msg00398.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:50:55 -0600 > > Eli> Yes. We are also supposed to humor the responsible maintainer when > Eli> she asks for some simple change as part of the review process. > > Tom> That is no reason to ignore the agreed-upon rules. > > Eli> It is to me. The agreed-upon rules are a two-way street, you know. > > I don't see how your behavior helps the situation. It is an expression of protest in the most quiet way I could come up with. If you'd just let it go, it would have stayed that way. > Several alternatives to this approach were available to you. For > example, you could have sent email saying that it was not a suggestion. > Or you could have said that in the first place. Or, you could even have > asked me to revert my patch. None of these alternatives seemed better than what I did, given the "do it yourself, if you want" response I got for my comments. > Tom> In this case I did not read your message as a request. I saw it as a > Tom> conditional suggestion, which I chose not to take. > > Eli> I don't see any difference between a suggestion and a request, when it > Eli> comes from the responsible maintainer. > > You once told me that you never vetoed a patch, and that "Disagreement, > even a strong one, is not a veto unless you perceive it as such". That > is how I have read all email from you from then on -- I try to make the > changes you like, but in the end, I rely on my own judgment. Sorry, but you are abusing the intentionally soft tone of my review comments and my urge to find a compromise almost at any cost. I don't veto patches, but I don't expect blunt refusal to do anything at all about some of my comments, either. I respect your judgment, but the final approval of the patch is still my responsibility. Until I say "OK" or something to that effect, the discussion is not over and the patch cannot go in asking me to do the rest if I want to. These are the rules, as far as I understand them; if I missed something, please point out what that is.