[MPlayer-dev-eng][NO-SPAM][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.
>
> Diego

This is exactly the reason I did not wanted this text to be changed to
its 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 did not agree
with your change but you committed it anyway.  Now I am sure that we
will start count votes, 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 discarding 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
how.
If you don't, I will reverse it when I get home.