[MPlayer-dev-eng] [POLICY] clarify conditions for functionality removal

[Ivan Kalvachev]

2006/2/8, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de>:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:23:24AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:16:59AM +0000, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> > > 2006/2/5, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de>:
> > > > We have the following paragraph in our policy that forbids removing
> > > > functionality from the code:
> > > >
> > > > 4. Do not change behavior of the program (renaming options etc) without
> > > >    first discussing it on the mplayer-dev-eng mailing list. Do not
> > > >    remove functionality from the code. Just improve!
> > > >
> > > > I think this needs to be revisited.  Removing functionality can make
> > > > sense in certain cases (MHz counter anyone?) and should be allowed under
> > > > certain conditions.  I therefore propose updating the policy to read:
> > > >
> > > > 4. Do not change behavior of the program (renaming options etc) or
> > > >    remove functionality from the code without first discussing it
> > > >    on the mplayer-dev-eng mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > I think this is closer to the way we handle the situation right now and
> > > > makes more sense.
> > >
> > > We are not parlament or goverment that must follow the law. These
> > > rules are just guide for us. We can always break them as long as
> > > everybody agree that.
> >
> > Well, it kind of defeats the purpose of having rules if they can be
> > broken arbitrarily..
> >
> > The CVS guidelines should describe the policy that we work with, not
> > something different.  Fact is that we *do* accept removing features under
> > certain circumstances.  All my patch does is fix the current practice in
> > writing.
>
> Applied.

This is exactly the reason I do not want this text to be changed in it
current form.

Your text says that you can remove functions after discussion, it
doesn't say that e.g. everybody should agree with it. I didn't agree
with your change but you committed it anyway.  Now I am sure that we
will start count voting and who agrees against who denies. Just like
politic. Once we turn into politics, technical reasoning goes to hell.
DonDiego, you are like corrupt politic, that sneaks behind our backs
and changes fundamental rules one by one, always pretending he
improves them.

So... please reverse it and leave it as it was. The right way is to
say when we can remove functions based on existing precedents, not
open huge backdoor.
If you don't, I will reverse it when I get home.