[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] Vetoing commits

(I'll come around to your reply to my original, Vladimir. Need lots more time than I have today to address all of that.)

I want to address one specific point here that I find troubling: A veto is not something you can levy and then say you're "[checked out]".

There is no "high ground" here. Even with a veto, there needs to be healthy communication between all parties. Shutting down and saying "I'm not interacting with this more" is equivalent in my eyes to saying "I'm withdrawing my veto".

We're all still volunteers here in some shape/form. Your itch to scratch may be different than everyone else's. It seems to me that you're taking a very trivial change and making it your hill to die on which is causing worry and angst for the entire PMC.

It is your prerogative to continue with CALCITE-2449 if you want to. That doesn't mean you can stop CALCITE-2438 from happening meanwhile.

On 8/10/18 12:28 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
Michael>Unless I'm missing something, this was not something you proposed
on the
Michael>JIRA issue, correct?

Please check [1], [6] and subsequent messages.

Your mileage might vary, yet adding proper assertion messages was exactly
what I asked to do several times ("error messages" is present in issue 3
times, and there's "test failures should be easy to understand")
I did show the way "bad message" would look like and the way it would make
life harder, however it was not convincing enough.

Michael>but hopefully we can also move this issue forward.

I'm much more interested in moving CALCITE-2449 forward (see [7]) which in
my opinion would make CALCITE-2438 obsolete.
So I do not see reasons to spend my time on 2348 (see [8])