Re: Solving this 0⁰ issue correctly (was Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0)

[Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>]

On 20/02/2013 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>> [Pedro]
>>>> I also want an assurance that this will never *ever* happen again (I am
>>>> talking about the revert, I guess bikesheds are unavoidable). ...
> what I will do ... is to propose changes to
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto that make it clear
> that it is considered disrespectful or anti-social to revert someone
> else's patches. This will allow better handling of similar problems in
> future.

(Don't worry, I am not reopening the 0 ^ 0 discussion... just a follow-up)

After a thorough review on the members list as advised by Ross in
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@openoffice.apache.org/msg04423.html
and several tweaks the changes to the glossary page were published this 
weekend. Note that the glossary uses a neutral wording in general, so 
the patch respects the general tone of the glossary.

See http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto

The new text reads:

-     invalid. Vetos only apply to code changes; they do not apply to
+     invalid; in case of doubt, deciding whether a technical
+     justification is valid is up to the PMC. Vetos force discussion
+     and, if supported, version control rollback or appropriate code 
changes. Vetoed code commits
+     are best reverted by the original committer, unless an urgent
+     solution is needed (e.g., build breakers). Vetos only apply to
+     code changes; they do not apply to
       procedural issues such as software releases.

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org