On 6/11/2017 12:35 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote: > On 10 June 2017 at 21:57, Fleshgrinder <p...@fleshgrinder.com> wrote: >> >> This RFC is only > > "When collaborating with others – especially when designers and > programmers are part of the mix – watch out for these dirty four > letter words: Need Must Can’t Easy Just Only Fast" > https://signalvnoise.com/posts/439-four-letter-words > > It's actually setting a rule for a project, that has gone 23 years > without needing that rule, which doesn't sound completely trivial. >
It is a clarification of an existing rule. A rule that already exists for 16 years. On 6/11/2017 12:35 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote: >> Hence, one week seems sensible. > > It doesn't seem sensible to me. > > The minimum discussion period is for when there is an urgent problem > that ought to be addressed but there is disagreement about the best > way to resolve it. > The existing rules are pretty explicit about their intend and applicability. Not sure where this is coming from. On 6/11/2017 12:35 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote: > We should be taking longer periods to think about committing to coding > standards, rather than just the bare minimum. > Here I agree in general, but the RFC's question is trivial and its choices are obvious. That is why I believe that it does not require much though. On 6/11/2017 12:35 AM, Dan Ackroyd wrote: > People (in general) have better things to do than read internals. Some > of the discussions over the past couple of weeks have been even more > demotivating than usual, which is probably one of the reasons why > people haven't responded yet. > >> We can of course wait if there is a serious issue. > > We can of course wait anyway. > > This RFC isn't going to affect 7.2, so the first release it will > affect is 7.3 - so we could wait 12 months to vote before it became > critical. > > cheers > Dan > Seems like people have serious issues, so let's wait. -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
