On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 18:22 -0700, James Keenan via RT wrote: > On Sun Apr 20 19:01:44 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I would like to propose both short-term and long-term remedies. > > > > Short-term: If you are proposing a new configuration step, or doing > > a significant overhaul of any existing step, please post an RT with > > the code and with a [TODO] tag several days ahead of time. This will > > give people a chance to run it on different OSes right away, without > > compromising trunk. And if I get advance notice of any new config > > step, I pledge to work with you to develop tests for that step. > > > > Since I filed this RT, two completely new configuration step classes > have been added -- neither of which was preceded by an RT. So it is > evident that the committers do not like this suggestion.
I hope that you are not referring to config/gen/call_list here -- I definitely tried to follow your request. I created my patch only after specifically asking you for anything you wanted from a new config step. I then posted my patch to RT to create the new step a week and a half ago, and responded quickly to objections. Then I waited until yesterday before beginning to pester chromatic (since he had done the main review) to accept or reject. He asked for changes, I submitted a new patch to his specs, and he then accepted and committed the change. Total time between RT and commit: over 9 days. > > Long-term: We need a Parrot design document on configuration. Such > > a document should cover what configuration is, why we have decided to > > include the configuration steps already there, what we need and what > > we don't need. Such a document should distinguish between what we > > need between now and 1.0 OTOH and post-1.0 OTO. > > There has been no support for this suggestion from the key people. I know I don't qualify as "key people" (not being a committer), but I and others agreed such a document would be a good thing. > So I am withdrawing this ticket and classifying it as rejected. I think Warnock applies, rather than assuming you got -1 from all voters. -'f
