[MPlayer-dev-eng] [RFC] Policy update

[Uoti Urpala]

On Sat, 2006-10-07 at 20:20 +0200, Roberto Togni wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:06:23 +0300
> Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala at pp1.inet.fi> wrote:
> > I don't oppose a guideline about mailing list discussion for changes
> > which are believed to be controversial (with some consideration given to
> > the size and risk of the change - changes which are easy to revert and
> > cannot cause serious breakage need less guarantee of consensus before
> 
> I disagree. imo "commit, and eventually reverse" is not the right way to
> act.

If you think reversal is the most likely result then it is not the right
way. However that is not what I was talking about. If you do not expect
significant controversy but cannot be 100% sure then the cost of
applying+reversing does matter when deciding whether to be extra careful
"just in case".

> And by looking at MPlayer history you'll find out that most (all?)
> controversial patches were "technically" perfect, the disagreement was
> political (opportunity, wording, reason, ...)

I don't see how this is related to earlier discussion. Do the potential
reasons for controversy affect any of the points? Has anyone claimed the
reasons would be different?

> > applying). However the timing of this proposal combined with your cvslog
> > mail suggests that you think my VIDIX message removal would have
> > violated your proposed addition. I disagree: there was no reason to
> > believe the change itself was controversial, and I've seen so reason to
> > doubt the correctness of that decision afterwards either. You seem to
> > have neither any argument against the patch itself nor a reason to
> > believe that someone else would have one.
> 
> Your commit is what prompted me to send this patch, but I already had
> a draft in my tree since some time.
> Don't take this as a personal attack.

So does "Your commit is what prompted me to send this patch" mean my
interpretation was correct? Do you claim the commit was controversial
and/or think it should have been sent as a patch first? I still haven't
seen anyone speak against the actual content of the commit...