On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 03:38:00PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > And sometimes that works. But it's also true, as many of us, I think, have > experienced, that it isn't always easy to get feedback. For example, Andre > recently criticized some of the changes I made to InsetCommandParams. In > fact, I think he was right to do so and that there is a better way, but: > (a) The ideas I implemented were ones that had originally been suggested to > me on the list and discussed openly; (b) before proceeding, I posted > several messages concerning general design questions and got almost no > response (silence is assent); and (c) I posted at least many of the patches > on the list before committing them. Now, to be sure, we can't all read > everything, but it is frustrating to try to get feedback, not get it, and > then later be criticized.
I did not criticize the process, and I think I did comment in the discussion on the alieness of the approach, but I was not too concerned about it as it seemed to be a fairly isolated change. My "non-opinion" changed as soon as this new architectural detail was used as an argument against a conceptually unrelated feature. > I'd have to go back and look at the emails, but I also remember that there > was some discussion of how this should be implemented. I think that Jose > raised objections way back then that were not very different form the ones > he raised just recently, and I don't think there really was a resolution, > but I guess Bo felt he could proceed, and did. But then just a month or so > ago, he completely changed the implementation, in ways that intruded > significantly on the inset code, and there was NO discussion of that. Wasn't the affected inset code mainly parameter handling, which, in turn was not exactly of ancient make? Andre'
