From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from www.xora.org.uk ([80.68.91.202] helo=xora.vm.bytemark.co.uk) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P6nGm-0002Fk-Ll for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:36:40 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xora.vm.bytemark.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB5861C088 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:36:07 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at xora.vm.bytemark.co.uk Received: from xora.vm.bytemark.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xora.vm.bytemark.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GaXaFtB50zrs for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:36:06 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (188-220-34-37.zone11.bethere.co.uk [188.220.34.37]) by xora.vm.bytemark.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B554E1C068 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:36:05 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4CB882F6.2040100@xora.org.uk> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:36:06 +0100 From: Graeme Gregory User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <1287159817.3770.582.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> In-Reply-To: <1287159817.3770.582.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 80.68.91.202 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dp@xora.org.uk X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: TSC minutes for 20101007 X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:36:41 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 15/10/2010 17:23, Phil Blundell wrote: > The TSC is of the opinion that, although the interaction between the > policies could be more clearly spelled out, the intended effect is that > one should always be able to revert one's own changes without further > review. Consequently, the TSC considers that the commit in question was > legitimate and did not breach the policies. Holger will write to Frans > and inform him of this decision. > This was certainly my intention when I drafted the policy as part of the TSC. My reasoning was that even after review a major flaw may be found in your own patch. Reverting back to unpatched state may do less damage than waiting 2 weeks for a futher patch to be implemented and reveiwed. Graeme