Re: ECPG bug fix: DECALRE STATEMENT and DEALLOCATE, DESCRIBE

> question with a question mark. Despite the fact that it is generally
> understood that "committers own their own items", and that the RMT
> exists as a final check on that.

This does not contradict my opinion, but anyway.

> Clearly we disagree about this. I don't think that there is anything
> to be gained from discussing this any further, though. I suggest that
> we leave it at that.

Agreed.

> I don't want to upset anybody for any reason. I regret that my words
> have upset you, but I think that they were misinterpreted in a way
> that I couldn't possibly have predicted. The particular aspect of

I strongly object to that. It's pretty obvious to me that addressing
people in third person is very offending.

> last
> Friday's email that you took exception to was actually intended to
> convey that it was not personal. Remember, my whole ethos is to avoid
> strong RMT intervention when possible, to make it impersonal. My
> framing of things had the opposite effect to the one I'd intended,
> ironically.

Let me stress again that the third person part is the bad thing in my
opinion, not the rest of the words.

> How could anybody on the RMT judge what was going on sensibly? There
> was *zero* information from you (the original committer, our point of
> contact) about an item that is in a totally unfamiliar part of the
> code to every other committer. We were effectively forced to make
> very
> conservative assumptions about the deadline. I think that it's very
> likely that this could have been avoided if only you'd engaged to
> some
> degree -- if you had said it was a short deadline then we'd likely
> have taken your word for it, as the relevant subject matter expert
> and
> committer in charge of the item. But we were never given that choice.

The same holds the other way round, I only understood later that you
wanted more information. Had I known that earlier, I would have gladly
given them.

> > Well, you did lay out what the decision would be and I fully agreed
> > with it. So again, what was there to do? Had you asked me if I
> > agreed,
> > I would told you.
>
> If the patch being reverted was so inconsequential to you that you
> didn't even feel the need to write a brief email about it, why did
> you
> commit it in the first place? I just don't understand this at all.

I'm getting very tired of you accusing me of things I neither said nor
did. Please stop doing that or show me the email where I said the patch
was "inconsequential"? As for writing a brief email, please read all
the other emails in this thread, I've explained myself repeatedly
already.

Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org