From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1994 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2005 04:40:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 1987 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2005 04:40:14 -0000 Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 04:40:14 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-244-88.inter.net.il [84.228.244.88]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR) with ESMTP id BVI43230 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 2 Nov 2005 06:40:06 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 05:18:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20051101225954.GB1107@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:59:55 -0800) Subject: Re: [commit] Mention VAX floating-point support in NEWS Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200511010731.jA17VS9g027288@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20051101225954.GB1107@adacore.com> X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:59:55 -0800 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: Mark Kettenis , > gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > In my very humble opinion, I think it will overall cost less energy > if we let changes like this go in, and deal with the odd case where > the change is not obvious after all. My reasoning is that these cases > happen very seldomly as the global maintainers have demonstrated a good > sense of judgement, and it's always easy to revert if we need to discuss > this. I'm sorry to say, but your reasoning flies in the face of our recent experience. People (who will remain unnamed) were making controversial changes to the repository, sometimes even over protests of fellow maintainers. As experience would have it, reverting is an option that is seldom if ever taken; perhaps the reason is that unilateral reverts will just start a revert war, because the person whose patches are reverted has write access and can re-commit the reverted patches. Even if things don't go this far, reverting a change is something deemed too radical and harsh (and justly so, IMHO), so I don't think we should rely on it as part of our procedures. Anyway, I'm amazed that people are so quick in forgetting the bitter lessons we all should have learned from such recent events.