Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On May  8, 2018, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 05/07/2018 05:07 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>>> On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> It will be hard to make progress with multiple issues at the same time.
>>>> 
>>>> It's not multiple issues.
>>>> 
>>>>> However, you go against the objections of at least 3 of your fellow
>>>>> GNU project maintainers.
>>>> 
>>>> Show me where they objected to MY proposal.
>> 
>>> https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00055.html
>> 
>>> "I also object to ANY replacement of the original joke."
>> 
>> Again, that's part of the larger discussion, not a response to my
>> proposal to restore the initial conditions.
>> 
>> Even after you claim it to be an objection, I still fail to find
>> relationship between proposal and alleged objection.  Nothing replaced
>> the original joke.  It's still there.  Which is just as it should be in
>> the absence of consensus about the larger issue, both before and after
>> the removal patch was installed.

> Are you claiming that you weren't aware of Carlos' objection, or that
> it wasn't valid since it wasn't directly in reply to your proposal?

I was aware of his objection to put something else where the joke was.
I also understood that as support for the removal of the joke, which is
to larger and still ongoing discussion.  This has to do with what the
manual should look like after consensus in this larger issue is reached.

I do not see that it is related in any way with the issue of what the
initial conditions should be, *while* the larger discussion is ongoing.

> Or did you ignore it because you decided a straight revert wasn't a
> "replacement of the original joke"?

I did not ignore it, I just understood it in the context it was meant
for.  The initial conditions for the discussion did not involve
replacing the joke, but rather having it there, as it was initially, or
not having it there, as it was after the patch was mistakenly installed.

> I find the suggestion that people should reply directly to your
> proposal to be somewhat disingenuous given that you didn't submit the
> patch to the mailing list before committing it.

I did submit the proposal to revert, for at least the duration of the
debate.  Although that can be represented as a patch, a reversal is
hardly worthy of posting as a patch.  In my mind, it hardly qualifies as
a patch: it's a (temporary) reversal.

Replying directly to me is certainly not a strict requirement, as long
as the responses clearly specified that they referred to a separate
discussion subthread from that in which they appeared, although this
could certainly increase the risk of confusion.

I guess I could have started a separate thread, to draw more attention
to the unrelated proposal, but...  I didn't think of it.  Another
suggestion for the consensus-building rules?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer