I agree. He rejected the original pull request on the grounds that it was "trivial." It didn't add anything new, didn't improve anything, and didn't correct any problem.
The then reverted the commit when procedures weren't followed (he had already rejected it).
His rejection and trivialization of the issue IS what people are upset about. Not the actual rejection. If he had rejected the commit, on grounds of procedure but offered a better neutral wording, or at least some way to improve the wording via another pr, then I don't believe anyone would have been upset. Instead he choose to make the gender inclusion matter trivial which is pretty close to just being plain divisive.
Comments
I agree. He rejected the original pull request on the grounds that it was "trivial." It didn't add anything new, didn't improve anything, and didn't correct any problem.
The then reverted the commit when procedures weren't followed (he had already rejected it).
His rejection and trivialization of the issue IS what people are upset about. Not the actual rejection. If he had rejected the commit, on grounds of procedure but offered a better neutral wording, or at least some way to improve the wording via another pr, then I don't believe anyone would have been upset. Instead he choose to make the gender inclusion matter trivial which is pretty close to just being plain divisive.