Minor changes aren't reviewed very much, major changes are typically reviewed when someone posts them on the list before committing them. The author is complaining that this is a major change, it's complicated his package (a heavily used one), and the problems haven't been resolved after many months.
Enacs-lisp relies on disciplined use of a single global namespace, with extremely long names. Using names from a part of the namespace that "belongs" to someone else is rude and IMO bad.
Oh, so that's why this was so ragequit-worthy: the global elisp namespace is delicate, and unilateral changes like this without consulting the maintainer of the stomped-over package is a big no-no.
Reverting would also be rude there. Their project culture assumes that you discuss on the list first. He couldn't very well commit without discussion when he's complaining that that other guy commits without discussion.
Enacs-lisp relies on disciplined use of a single global namespace, with extremely long names. Using names from a part of the namespace that "belongs" to someone else is rude and IMO bad.