Re: wiki.d.o: SummerOfCode2009/KDE-based-packagemanager (bis)

[Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com>]

On 2010-07-28 19:04, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>    
> > On 2010-07-28 09:10, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> >      
> > > * Filipus Klutiero<chealer@gmail.com>   [2010-07-28 07:31:41 CEST]:
> > >
> > >        
> > > > the wiki page
> > > > http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2009/KDE-based-packagemanager
> > > > could use some work, but I can't easily edit it due to an edit
> > > > restriction on my account for this page set by Steve McIntyre in
> > > > revision 18. The restriction is commented by "Put the page back to
> > > > where
> > > > it has been for a year. Philippe: why are you changing this after a
> > > > year?". I answered Steve's question and asked him to revert, but he
> > > > declined:
> > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2010/05/msg00044.html
> > > >          
> > I don't understand how the ban can seem quite justified when it has no
> > justification.
> >      
> Let me summarize:
> * in revision 9, you make a single _large_ rewrite of the page
>    =>  this is ok, but you should have split your edit, starting
>    by easy, non-controversial changes. (so other can understand
>    what you do, why you it, and comment ont it).
> * in revision 10, another editor is not happy with your change.
>    Since it's a single large edit, that editor decide to simply
>    revert the whole change
>    =>  this is ok.
> * in revision 11, you revert the revert
>    =>  this is not ok.
>    

This is incorrect. Here is a proper summary of the problematic edits on 
that page:

* in revision 9, Filipus makes several minor modifications to the page
  =>  this is ok
* in revision 10, Sune reverts Filipus's changes.
  =>  this is not ok, since this brings regressions and no justification for reverting a good faith edit was provided.
* in revision 11, Filipus reverts Sune's rollback
  =>  this is ok, since Sune's rollback was not OK.
* in revision 12, Sune reverts Filipus's changes again.
  =>  this is at least as incorrect as revision 10, since this brings regressions and no justification for reverting a good faith edit was provided.
* in revision 13 to 15, Paul places an edit restriction on Filipus.
  =>  this is unacceptable, as Filipus did nothing wrong and no justification is provided.
* in revision 17, over a year after 16, Filipus rollbacks to his last version through the use of a second account.
  =>  this is regrettable, due to the use of a second account to escape an edit restriction placed by an admin, but in fact a good thing, since this restores r11 and since Paul failed to justify his restriction in more than a year and all other admins failed to intervene in more than 2 months.
* in revision 18, Steve reverts Filipus's changes.
  =>  this is not ok, since this brings regressions and no justification for reverting a good faith edit was provided.



> You and the editor can go reverting the page forever, if you don't
> communicate/collaborate.
>    
Not really... if Sune had improperly reverted r9 a third time, I'd have 
had him prevented from editing that page.
> If you want your odification to be accepted, it is
> your job to explain and convince other authors why those change are
> useful.
>    
No, it is not my job to justify every change I make. It is the job of 
someone who doesn't want the changes to explain what it thinks could be 
wrong in the changes (assuming, of course, that it doesn't want to just 
fix the problems).