From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1293 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2010 19:36:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 1208 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Sep 2010 19:36:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:36:09 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L9500F00YBUBO00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:35:40 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.203.3]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L9500EK7YFFEOF0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:35:40 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:59:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: RFA: fix PR python/11792 In-reply-to: To: Tom Tromey Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83vd5xvaep.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83pqwzkeyi.fsf@gnu.org> <83zkw0j15r.fsf@gnu.org> <83y6bkhy8d.fsf@gnu.org> <83fwx2w37j.fsf@gnu.org> <83y6atve9j.fsf@gnu.org> <20100922182504.GA3007@adacore.com> <83wrqdvcup.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-09/txt/msg00390.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:17:25 -0600 > > >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: > > 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. > > That is no reason to ignore the agreed-upon rules. It is to me. The agreed-upon rules are a two-way street, you know. If people are not interested to see the manual fit the quality standards that I consider important (which aren't much, if you follow my reviews), I don't see why they should be interested in seeing my patches to fix that what they declined to. Not to mention the fact that every commit is visible after you resync with the repository, anyway. > In this case I did not read your message as a request. I saw it as a > conditional suggestion, which I chose not to take. I don't see any difference between a suggestion and a request, when it comes from the responsible maintainer. And I don't see a difference between "chose not to take" and "decline to" (a.k.a. "refuse"). I'm not going to fight with people to get my "suggestions" into the manual against their explicitly expressed will (or lack thereof).