Andrew Garrett <agarr...@...> writes: > I will say to be fair that the best response to what you perceive as a > poor design choice in somebody else's code is not to revert them and > say "There, I fixed it for you. Thank me later.", but perhaps to > discuss it with them first and find a compromise. There's an > imperative to listen and respond to community feedback, but quietly > changing somebody else's code against their explicit wishes is not a > good way to make your point. > This is true. In that sense, I do feel that the revert itself was justified for the exact reasons you state, but that the message sent by the revert summary was harsh and authoritarian, as I said. Reverting that change with a gentler and more helpful summary, or even just leaving it in for some time while a compromise is being worked on (the latter should not be done as a rule, of course, to discourage the point-making by disruption you speak of), would've been a better course of action.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
