> On 2004-11-18, Erik Huelsmann <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > Book Spanish. Reverting r11882 because it didn't follow
> > > the correct commit procedure and author doesn't clear up
> > > source/authority.
> > I'm not sure I understand the objection. Is the translation
> > incorrect?
> Yes, there are two mistakes in the translation and one mistake in
> the log message. For a one liner patch this puts into doubt the
> credibility of both Daniel Rall and Laila Cory Rall as responsible
> > What do you mean by 'author doesn't clear up source/authority'?
> > Is your objection is that the author did not come to the list
> > to announce his/her intentions before committing? In that case
> > you could have followed up to the commit mail informing dlr about
> > your procedure asking him to keep to it if he has any intentions
> > for more contributions. I'm sure he's sensitive to your comments.
> I sent such a message with reasons the 13th of November. But I've
> got no answer. Before reverting the change I sent another notice
> yesterday, the 18th of November with further explanations about
> my decision.
Ah. Ok. May I ask you to cc such messages to the dev@ list? That way other
devs understand what's happening when they see your revert.
> With authority of the patch I mean that attribution has to be
> given to the correct person, otherwise patches cannot be accepted.
> Every contributed patch has to be traceable to a person, and this
> person has to accept the terms of the license. I've done this so
> far with all the contributors and will continue doing it to avoid
> legal problems I've had in previous projects.
Quite understandable. It's always good to stay away from legal problems.
> > Whatever your reasons may have been: reverting is a severe measure.
> > Please use it carefully on other peoples commits: people are
> > contributing on a voluntary basis and je want them to keep doing it
> > :-) Patching up any incorrectnesses is - for that reason - far more
> > preferable than reverting.
> Indeed, I explained this to Daniel and asked him to please resubmit
> the patch following the correct rules. Without any answer on his
> part, however, the difference would have been rejecting the patch
> on the mailing list due to incorrections.
Ok. I believe Daniel already sent his reaction about that.
Thanks for clearing this all up and thanks for doing all the hard work!
NEU +++ DSL Komplett von GMX +++ http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
GMX DSL-Netzanschluss + Tarif zum supergŁnstigen Komplett-Preis!
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Fri Nov 19 21:02:09 2004