On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 10:30 -0400, Patrick Creech wrote: > -1 I'm changing my vote to -0 to better reflect my initial intention of expressing my dissent, but not blocking the passage of this outright; as I do not believe I have enough knowledge and experience in this argument to do such. (I apologize for any frustration, I wasn't aware at the time my -1 would solely block this. I should have RTFM'ed).
To follow up, I want to re-summarize my dissent here. I don't know all the ins and outs of this argument, and decided to keep it this way to better analyze the argument with minimal prior knowledge. This was to be able to come to this at voting time with fresh eyes, and have a layman's take. This allowed me to take the public artifacts here at face value to understand why we are doing this, and what direction we're heading. Upon a naive initial searching of google, it appears that the general public sentiment is to not cherry-pick by default. I don't doubt that some of these results aren't the most reliable, but the general sentiment is overwhelming. To me, this meant that we need to have the reasons and benefits of moving to cherry-picking clearly spelled out as the obvious choice. I didn't pick up on that sentiment from reading the e-mail chain and PUP. On the suggestion of improving our current merge forward process, that window is left open by others in the public record appearing to suggest this as a viable option. If that is in fact an accurate representation, then to me that is the more preferable route as it sounds like improvements to our current course instead of charting a complete new one. If this is not the case, then it probably should be stated clearly somewhere as to why it isn't a good option.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
