Re: LLM Commit in upstream `master`?!

Stefan Monnier [27/Jul  7:27pm -04] wrote:
>> I think that it can't be right to call something like this a *very* bad
>> decision, because it ultimately affected just a handful of people over
>> the course of 24h, and then it fades into the past forever.
>
> The problem is both the force push itself and more importantly the way
> this was handled, over-dramatizing this very minor issue and rushing to
> a decision that disregarded the few reactions that have had time to
> arrive before you acted.
>
> I used strong words because I want to be sure we don't repeat this.

If we ended up in exactly the same situation again, I don't (yet) see
what other options we would have but to repeat it.

I don't think that is going to happen, though, because generally the
problem is the code, not only the commit message.  In the case that we
aren't going to re-introduce the code right after, we can just revert
the whole commit and I agree that's good enough.

-- 
Sean Whitton