Re: RFA: fix PR python/11792

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:17:25 -0600
> 
> >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> 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.
> 
> That is no reason to ignore the agreed-upon rules.

It is to me.  The agreed-upon rules are a two-way street, you know.
If people are not interested to see the manual fit the quality
standards that I consider important (which aren't much, if you follow
my reviews), I don't see why they should be interested in seeing my
patches to fix that what they declined to.  Not to mention the fact
that every commit is visible after you resync with the repository,
anyway.

> In this case I did not read your message as a request.  I saw it as a
> conditional suggestion, which I chose not to take.

I don't see any difference between a suggestion and a request, when it
comes from the responsible maintainer.  And I don't see a difference
between "chose not to take" and "decline to" (a.k.a. "refuse").  I'm
not going to fight with people to get my "suggestions" into the manual
against their explicitly expressed will (or lack thereof).