Re: RFA: fix PR python/11792

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

Eli> Yes.  We are also supposed to humor the responsible maintainer when
Eli> she asks for some simple change as part of the review process.

Tom> That is no reason to ignore the agreed-upon rules.

Eli> It is to me.  The agreed-upon rules are a two-way street, you know.

I don't see how your behavior helps the situation.

Several alternatives to this approach were available to you.  For
example, you could have sent email saying that it was not a suggestion.
Or you could have said that in the first place.  Or, you could even have
asked me to revert my patch.

Tom> In this case I did not read your message as a request.  I saw it as a
Tom> conditional suggestion, which I chose not to take.

Eli> I don't see any difference between a suggestion and a request, when it
Eli> comes from the responsible maintainer.

You once told me that you never vetoed a patch, and that "Disagreement,
even a strong one, is not a veto unless you perceive it as such".  That
is how I have read all email from you from then on -- I try to make the
changes you like, but in the end, I rely on my own judgment.

Eli> I'm not going to fight with people to get my "suggestions" into the
Eli> manual against their explicitly expressed will (or lack thereof).

Sounds good.  Just post your patches, like all other contributors.

Tom