https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161941
--- Comment #24 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #22) > Sigh, as usual Eyal you've missed the point. I really would prefer not to > expend the effort of cleaning up your messes, yet they keep coming... Thank you for your kind words. That's very useful. > Here there is no imperative that the fonts contributed as part of the Google > "DocRepair" project be removed. Community member Collabora either had a > direct request for them or it was just a Dev's inkling to implement--end of > story. End of "process". And you believe this is ok? Suppose that the developer had an "inkling" to bundle not 7 fonts, but 70, or 700. Still ok? How about if they committed some bug in the app startup code that makes it crash. Still ok? > As that is the means by which the project is > maintained, features are spawned, and dead/obsolete code is pruned. So, you're saying nothing is ever reverted and no non-code is ever excised? > If you more directly want/need something--code it up and submit patches for > peer review. Devs, aka Doers, decide. Which is it? Peer review, or doers decide? If "doers decide" - what if a does make a mistake? If it's peer review - where was the review of this bundling? > Then if there is a real reason to > revert, ESC would provide such guidance--user issues and trustee concerns > should not be beat to death in a BZ issue. Yet you do... I shouldn't have even had to file this bug. It was just a rash commit which should have been backed out when people noticed it. The fact that it gets as far as a long discussion on Bugzilla is itself testament to a problem other than the (honest I believe) mistake. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
