Vlad, Gary has stated standing Apache policy. It isn't debatable. You are not an exception.
No, micro details don't need to be discussed on the list. Design and architectural and direction and philosophy do belong on the mailing list. And should _not_ interrupt work being done on Git. A pull review is a focused review, not an extended conversation; if you want to argue about something bring it back here. Yes, I've been guilty of violating this too; guilty as charged. But it's time we stopped. I'm afraid you are going to see me saying "take it to the list" on a more regular basis, speaking as one of the de facto leads here. Perhaps the actual lead once I get myself settled back in; I was involved in the early design decisions, wrote a lot of this code, and I expect I still know it's behavior and flow better than anyone else currently involved. If you insist, I can call this an official directive from the PMC. -- /_ Joe Kesselman (he/him/his) -/ _) My Alexa skill for New Music/New Sounds fans: / https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09WJ3H657/ Caveat: Opinionated old geezer with overcompensated writer's block. May be redundant, verbose, prolix, sesquipedalian, didactic, officious, or redundant. ________________________________ From: Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 1:56:03 AM To: dev@xalan.apache.org <dev@xalan.apache.org> Subject: Re: Can we keep Git more focused? >GitHub makes sense, but the end result must be recorded here in some form. Gary, bots copy comments from both GitHub and JIRA to the mailing list anyway. I think people should select the medium (GitHub, JIRA, email) based on the context rather than based on "all discussions on mailing list only" rules. Of course it makes no sense to manually copy every decision from every JIRA to the mailing list. Vladimir
