Le 14/02/2013 23:34, Rob Weir a écrit :
In any case, I don't think anyone should care who reverts. Once a veto has been stated, the code needs to be reverted. Who does it is a matter of convenience. Please don't be offended if someone else does it.
The vetoes were very poorly documented. Nobody has commented about Pedro's remark about the context of Bourbaki's work (this point being the most technical point of this whole topic). I've not taken the care to look at it (my maths lessons are rather old now). The question is: was the work presented applicable to real world or was it a custom maths space with a custom set of laws that would not fit the reality of a spreadsheet for real work? Even if the patch case is now closed, I'm rather disappointed by the way it has been handled. I can't see how this kind of behavior could attract new developers. Side question: we have see that the backward compatibility was the most important point here. What about a future improvement that would break the backward compatibility? Does it mean that it would be vetoed as well? Hagar
