Rob Weir wrote:
[Andrea] I agree that there should be no delay from the moment a veto is
acknowledged to the moment the commit is reverted ...
[Dave Fisher] As long as "no delay" allows for the person being some reasonable
number of hours away from the their technology including that daily activity
that some call sleep.
Obviously, Dave. I wrote "acknowledged" to mean that when the committer
has had reasonable time to see and evaluate the veto he should promptly
revert.
In this case Pedro had already written that he *would not* revert the
patch.
Any developer (with a couple of exceptions maybe...) can change his mind
after a 120-and-counting message thread about an issue. I'd appreciate
that, instead of trying to find details to justify an action that has
already been done, we thanked Pedro for tolerating the "forced revert"
in this case and we simply agreed that in future we will consider it
best (again, not for the code but for the community) if a patch is
reverted by the original committer whenever possible. As simple as that.
No need to flood this list with some other dozen messages.
Regards,
Andrea.
