From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13783 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2010 19:51:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 13774 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Sep 2010 19:51:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:51:14 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8MJouGJ003788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:50:56 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8MJourc024395; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:50:56 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8MJotGH029828; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:50:55 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 493BD378875; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:50:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: fix PR python/11792 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> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:57:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <83vd5xvaep.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:35:42 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00394.txt.bz2 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. 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. 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. Eli> I'm not going to fight with people to get my "suggestions" into the Eli> manual against their explicitly expressed will (or lack thereof). Sounds good. Just post your patches, like all other contributors. Tom