On 8/23/06, Max Bowsher <maxb1@ukf.net> wrote:
> The reactions of committers so far have been:
>
> You and Justin: Irked by the delay, but not commenting on the change itself.
>
> David James: Expressed tentative positive reaction, on reading my email.
>
> Brane: Expressed misgivings, to which I responded with counter-arguments
> which, IMO, dispel them.
>
>
> That's not an adequate weight of opinion to recommend reverting as a
> course of action to me - not when the sole negative reaction against the
> change (rather than its timing) is one that I think I have suitably
> logically countered.
My issue is that you feel the conversation was ended and I don't think
that had happened yet. We knew that Brane wasn't happy with it, he
never had an opportunity to reply to your 'logically countered' reply,
and we just went ahead and merged it in r21223.
In general, if someone has an issue with a commit, we owe it to
ourselves to let the conversation conclude with a consensus rather
than just declaring that you win and attempting to stifle any further
conversation.
On this particular point, I resonate more with Brane's comments as I
think the new option name isn't a good choice as it gives the wrong
impression to our users: pre-1.4-compatible is *not* accurate in any
sense of the word - it implies that the repository will work with 1.0,
1.1, 1.2, etc to a naive admin - that's clearly not the case. But,
even more than that, we never had an opportunity to find a
middle-ground that would be acceptable. Ugh. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 24 09:21:43 2006