This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] manual: Remove warning in the documentation of the abort function
- From: Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, rms at gnu dot org, Alexandre Oliva <oliva at gnu dot org>, Raymond Nicholson <rain1 at airmail dot cc>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:48:09 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] manual: Remove warning in the documentation of the abort function
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 1:32 PM Florian Weimer <email@example.com> wrote:
> This reinstates commit 340d9652b9d0e1d4136588f18b726662d195777c
> ("manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate
> joke."), effectively reverting the revert in commit
> ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9 ("Revert:").
> 2019-10-07 Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> * manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove warning.
As the person who committed 340d9652b9d0e1d4136588f18b726662d195777c
in the first place, I endorse its reinstatement.
I wish to say for the record that I think the overrule of the glibc
maintainers' original decision, exercised by RMS in the lengthy thread
last May (representative message:
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00001.html>), was an
illegitimate use of authority, REGARDLESS of whether he is to continue
as "Chief GNUisance" in the future, or whether the GNU Project should
have a person empowered to make such unilateral overruling decisions.
As the original author of the text in question he has a conflict of
interest and he should have either accepted the decision of the
maintainers or referred the issue to someone both sides could agree
would act as a neutral arbiter.
Because it was an illegitimate act, we should not consider ourselves
bound by it.