Hi Andrea;
----- Messaggio originale ----- > Da: Andrea Pescetti > > Rob Weir wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> Fine. I would have started the vote earlier, but it's your code so > I'll >>> respect your choice. And it's good to give people more time to > think (not to >> We had a committer veto. Why are having a vote? A -1 from a >> commmitter is not something we vote on. > > Vetos must be based on technical grounds and can be withdrawn, see > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto > (no, I haven't seen a clearly stated "technical ground" in > Kay's mail). Due to the exceptional amount of posts in this thread, a proper > vote is now the clearest way out, and in case of opposition it will allow to > record clearly what the technical reason was. > The reason why I am asking for a two weeks break from the issue is that the list is in "bikeshed mode". As far as I can tell: - No one involved in thread has a spreadsheet depending on POWER(0, 0) and are only now aware that the value is somehow dubious. - With the notable exception of Regina, no one in this thread is doing Calc development and this change doesn't interfere with anyone else's work. - No one has complained about the technical merits of the patch. Was there a cleaer way to do it .. patches welcome!! AFAICT, just because this issue is easy to understand and somewhat controversial everyone think they should take a part of it. This called bikeshedding. I will not be bringing again this patch everytime there is a major release: if it doesn't make it in 4.0 it will be a sign that the fundamental Calc functionality is untouchable. I would prefer if people have time to evaluate the pros and cons of the patch before taking a vote. I honestly think the change is innocuous. >> The patch needs to be reverted, now. > > Please do not go on and revert it now, and please do not escalate the problem > again (this friendly advice applies to Pedro too). It is a trivial issue, > with > no side effects on the rest of the code, and it will be quickly solved by > voting > (where a -1 from a committer with a clearly stated "technical ground" > counts as veto) well before a release, or even a beta version, containing it > is > distributed. > So far Regina's response has been the best structured opposition to the patch and without bikeshedding. I do have the patch ready to revert if if required but TBH I don't see valid reasons as of yet. Pedro.
