On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 16:58, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: >> >> Or writing a design proposal, that clearly explains the intent >> of the change, the reason why it's needed, the security implications, >> how exactly the change will be implemented (e.g. where will the config >> setting live that allows the new behaviour?), etc. >> Something that helps people with loading the entire problem into >> their brain quickly, so they can reason about it > > The last thing I want to do is add more process (someones earlier comments > about HACKING are quick illuminating), but it might be worth creating a > template for such a document and posting it somewhere. I don't think we > need to go the full route of PEPs, but having some way to track design > proposals with more finesse than the issue tracker would be nice.
This is why patches are nice. Already have the format! But yah... if it is going to be a lot of work, then discussion is at least warranted. That's the best way to get a feeling for whether the effort will be worth it. In this case, I think the question "should I bother to work on this?" was probably left hanging because the problem/solution was too vague for people to definitively answer. Cheers, -g
