On 10.08.2014 22:26, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 10 August 2014 20:47, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>> On 10.08.2014 13:00, ivan_at_apache.org wrote:
>> Author: ivan
>> Date: Sun Aug 10 11:00:39 2014
>> New Revision: 1617088
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1617088
>> On svn-auth-x509 branch: Revert r1616093 (svn_checksum_to_cstring_display2
>> implementation) -- it's out of the scope of svn-auth-x509 branch and I
>> develop local x509 implementation for formatting cert fingerprints.
>> You started mucking with the branch, despite the fact that Ben has good and
>> valid reasons against your proposed change, and the discussion (and vote!)
>> on dev@ does not have a resolution yet.
> Could you please add technical reason for your veto. Just referencing
> Ben doesn't count. Ben could raise veto himself if he wanted, but
> current state of our discussion is different view to name and purpose
> of svn_x509_fingerprint_display() function.
This was not a veto. It was a request, and I said plainly why I made it.
>> Please revert r1617088, r1617095 and r1617096.
> I'm ready to do this, but I find it counter-productive because I'll
> have to raise convert my vote to -1 on svn-auth-x509 branch merge in
> situation when we actually doesn't have serious disagreement with Ben.
> Ben, could you please let me know if you don't like directions of my
> commits and want to have them reverted: I'll revert it immediately of
Ben already said why he didn't want to have a special display function
private to the x509 parser. Once again, your only counter-argument is
"code churn" and, once again, you're ignoring other people's arguments
because you don't like them.
Please stop doing that. It's not productive.
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco | Realising the impossibilities of Big Data
Received on 2014-08-11 01:54:30 CEST