Re: commit reversion without review

["Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv at altlinux dot org>]

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 01:22:32PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org> wrote:
> 
> > I suppose he just forgot how things are done here.
> 
> It is absolutely correct to state I had no idea that reverting a patch
> that had gone in without consensus and that was still under discussion
> required the reversal patch to be posted in any special way.  I don't
> see any such rule spelled out.  Still, I followed the written procedure:
> I posted the proposal, met the consensus criterion and, after several
> days, I installed the proposed reversal.
> 
> I do not see how it was a mistake. [...]

This is obvious.  What we usually commit without review is trivial bug-fix
changes (there is a tentative list of that kind of changes in the wiki).  
For a revert commit to fall into this category, it has to be trivial.
Let's have a look at your commit message from this perspective.

$ git show --no-patch ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9
commit ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9
Author: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org>
Date:   Mon May 7 01:37:37 2018 -0300

    Revert:
    2018-04-30  Raymond Nicholson <rain1@airmail.cc>
    * manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate joke.
    
    This complies with the decision of the project leader and primary and
    ultimate maintainer, who partially delegated maintainership to myself
    and others under certain constraints.
    
    This is also in line with the community-agreed procedures.
    
    It is obvious that we didn't have consensus on a decision to install
    that patch, since both sides are still arguing over it.
    
    As for the decision to reverse the deletion, if we even need one to
    counter a move that did not have consensus, although nobody else offered
    to install the reversal and restore the status prior to the fait
    accompli, and some explicitly refused to do so themselves, nobody
    objected when I offered to do so.  Therefore, by the same reasoning that
    led to the mistaken installation of the patch, and after a much longer
    wait for objections, I understand there is consensus on my reverting it.

The first issue with this commit is technical: if you were using "git revert",
it would've produced a git friendly commit message.  If you'd posted your
proposed commit for review, this minor issue could have been easily fixed.

The second issue is the lengthy text full of controversial statements:
every paragraph starting with the second one contains at least one
statement that was a subject of heated discussions in this list.

If you'd posted your proposed commit for review, this could've been fixed,
but you didn't, and this controversial commit message, unfortunately,
had sneaked in.

So let me reiterate: next time please post your proposed commits for review.

Thanks,


-- 
ldv

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature