Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

> You say later in your message (snipped as this is already getting rather
> long) that you wish technical changes would "go up for public discussion".
> It looks to me like that's precisely what's happening here, 

no, it's not what's happening here. this discussion happens after the
fact. you as well as I know very well that if this discussion happened
*before* he did the commit, it would have ended much earlier with the
conclusion that the price we pay by breaking kauth's opacity is not
worth the benefit.

is that correct?

> and also like
> the most probable outcome is that David's change will be reworked so that
> the kauth interface stays opaque.
> 
> So what's the problem?

see above: first commit, then talk = wrong. first talk, then commit if
a consensus is reached = right.

too many wrongs means the developers are not following any commit
guidelines. what do you expect will be the implications of that in the
long term?

-e.