[chongli]

Not only that, but the author of the original offending change asked the author of this blog to write a patch to make the change optional within the UI and then rejected the patch that was written. That seems like bad faith to me.

[yaantc]

Read the mailing list thread: the patch did much more than making the change optional, it did revert other related changes. That's why it was rejected. Other discussed changes were taken in, and it's not settled yet it seems: the discussion is on-going.

I find the reporting here very one sided and uselessly dramatic. I read the thread and don't see arrogance, just (sometimes strong) differences of opinion. Calling "arrogant" anyone who don't agree and fold to your view, and create drama and draw the crowd against one specific person (the initial change author, OK, but it was done with maintainers in the loop) where the crowd won't check the details is not OK in my book.

[chongli]

Then there is bad faith, it's just bad faith on the part of the linked blogger.