Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.169 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.169; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f169.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0Y5T2_e=TEeYr1R-Gke15_6dJBN+vgFG5Z34YfY4AKmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55828737.6000007@riseup.net>
	<CANEZrP3M7+BsZKLFZV-0A_fC7NmMGbTDxsx3ywru3dSW78ZskQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150618111407.GA6690@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<20150618114757.GB6690@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<CANEZrP0Y5T2_e=TEeYr1R-Gke15_6dJBN+vgFG5Z34YfY4AKmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:58:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgT0aiLtmOKzbSfp0KgUMz-Tcg1gD=tjgSH7iPJ_OJo3Bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Concerns Regarding Threats by a Developer
 to Remove Commit Access from Other Developers
Precedence: list

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>> And allegations that the project is "run like wikipedia" or "an edit war"
>> are verifyably untrue.
>> Check the commit history.
>
> This was a reference to a post by Gregory on Reddit where he said if Gavin
> were to do a pull request for the block size change and then merge it, he
> would revert it. And I fully believe he would do so!

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37pv74/gavin_andresen_moves_ahead_with_push_for_bigger/croxw9o?context=1

This is the only reddit comment I've made using the word revert in
recent memory, so I know you couldn't be referring to another.

>> I was recently in a situation similar to what Gavin is in insofar as a design dispute that could improperly solved by a git push. I'm pretty impressed he hasn't given in and done a midnight push. It's cool to see him back channeling support.
> Such a change would be immediately reverted.

And, I probably should have continued "and resulted with an immediate
revocation of commit rights on the assumption that his account had
been compromised."

There is nothing controversial about that.