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.

Disagree. The fact that he initially rejected the PR then subsequently tried to revert another commit shows he was upset at being overruled.

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.