I'll agree that the original PR was legit, and probably should have been merged.
However, if a rejected pull request can be overridden, then that pretty much rules out having PRs anyways. Perhaps Isaac should be able to merge his own PRs. If that's not the procedure, then it's not procedure.
Again, maybe I'm totally missing something here. I believe people are pissed because of the content of the commit that was rejected/reverted, but you have to separate that from what seems to be a run around the established policy.
Comments
I'll agree that the original PR was legit, and probably should have been merged.
However, if a rejected pull request can be overridden, then that pretty much rules out having PRs anyways. Perhaps Isaac should be able to merge his own PRs. If that's not the procedure, then it's not procedure.
Again, maybe I'm totally missing something here. I believe people are pissed because of the content of the commit that was rejected/reverted, but you have to separate that from what seems to be a run around the established policy.
The very first comment shows the policy was adhered to. https://github.com/joyent/libuv/commit/804d40ee14dc0f82c482d...
Very true - I was a bit thrown off by the use of real name (Bert) in the explanation of the revert.