From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 108170 invoked by alias); 9 May 2018 17:50:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 108047 invoked by uid 89); 9 May 2018 17:50:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=responds, his X-HELO: homiemail-a82.g.dreamhost.com Subject: Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Torvald Riegel , Florian Weimer , Carlos O'Donell , Zack Weinberg , libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <87wowkx6t0.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <1525726559.7567.634.camel@redhat.com> <1525771563.7567.708.camel@redhat.com> From: Siddhesh Poyarekar Message-ID: Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 17:50:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00416.txt.bz2 On 05/09/2018 09:57 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > I'll just note you didn't answer the questions, so I'll restate them: > per the rules, would a standing objection suggest we don't have > consensus and should at least check whether the objection was serious, > or is there any justification for outright dismissing it as if it wasn't > even there? It is a judgment call and absent Ondrej's insistence, I still see no reason to revisit it especially since the commit has been reverted for now. If Ondrej responds saying that his objection was a sustained one, I'll be happy to change my opinion on it. Siddhesh